WHY WE SHOULD DO IT -
TO WIN WE NEED EFFICIENCY, TRANSPARENCY, ACCESSIBILITY.
MEETING REQUIREMENTS TO INCREASE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Strict adherence to Meeting Time Frames, Agenda Adoption Process, Resolutions / Proposals
Process = More Transparent, Accessible, Efficient Meetings = More Participation.
Efficient meetings = more work gets done to beat the opposition, AND, more potential volunteer
participation as volunteers see more of their precious time used productively in the community. For
meetings to be efficient, processes have to transparent and accessible, and what follows are a set
of suggested guidelines to insure transparency and accessibility.
HOW WE SHOULD DO IT -
I. MEETING TIME FRAMES:
1. First 30 Minutes: OLD BUSINESS = RESOLUTIONS / PROPOSALS
At least 3, hopefully 5 votes on Resolutions / Proposals.
( 1 Min. introduction, 1 min pro, 1 min con, 2 min vote count, 1 min padding = 6 mins)
2. Next 15 to 30 Minutes: ANNOUNCEMENTS / DIGNITARY STATEMENTS
3. Next 15 to 30 Minutes: OLD BUSINESS – Wrap up, OR,
4. Final 30 Minutes: Introduce New RESOLUTIONS / PROPOSALS for consideration.
II. AGENDA ADOPTION PROCESS:
1. The Proposed Agenda from the chair will be posted to the web at least 10 days before
the meeting time.
2. Changes to the agenda must be posted to the web and approved by ½ of those who
vote.
3. Voting for Changes will end 24 hours after the posting of the suggested change.
Zero Votes = No Change.
4. No changes 5 days before the meeting.
5. The Agenda, after being finalized, should not be allowed to be altered for the first 30
minutes of the meeting under any circumstances. Excluding events like 9/11, or Pearl
Harbor, it can wait.
III. RESOLUTION / PROPOSAL PROCESS:
1. ALL Resolutions / Proposals have been posted to the web at least 10 days before the
meeting where they will be voted on.
A. The only amendments to any Resolution / Proposal to be considered will have been
posted to the web at least 5 days before the meeting.
WHY WE HAVE TO DO IT - THE REAL REALITY
I have been to too many meetings in 20 + years with no agendas, last minute proposals and
amendments to proposals, all of which took too much time to accomplish too little. I believe that
these time killing meetings also minimize or eliminate participation for too many citizens.
In the summer and fall of 2003 out here in Seattle, the were at least 20, maybe 30 meetings I
went to for Howard Dean. Each meeting was attended my over 100 people, at each meeting one of
the first questions was "How many are new...?", and at each meeting over 1/2 of those present
would raise their hands. As a math teacher, I frequently wondered how it was possible that 1/2 the
crowd was always new?
Maybe it was possible because, while the meetings were fun bash fests of the right, it was a
rare meeting when most left with something (what) to do, a where to do what, one or more people
(who) to do what with, a time or times (when) to do what, and instructions on how to do what.
Frequently the only thing people were told to do was "have a meeting".
I am not criticizing the great effort and the great purpose of so many. However, given the
Democratic party dismal grassroots "efforts" of the last 2 or 3 decades, too little of this great effort
and great purpose was as effective as it could have been. Maybe we should have been doing
things like mobilizing the tens of millions of women who didn't vote?
|
|