I am suggesting a few of these concepts extracted from Robert’s Rules to run our meetings:

Quorum is 1 more than half of membership.

We vote (majority based) to adopt agenda before each meeting.
We vote (majority based) to accept previous minutes at the beginning of each meeting.
We embrace lazy consensus, meaning if there is no debate over a 48 hour period about a decision that is being proposed via the Commons we embrace that decision.
All votes during a meeting are based upon a motion or move, then a seconding to bring a decision to a vote.

I am suggesting a few of these concepts extracted from Robert’s Rules to run our meetings:

Quorum is 1 more than half of membership.

We vote (majority based) to adopt agenda before each meeting.
We vote (majority based) to accept previous minutes at the beginning of each meeting.
We embrace lazy consensus, meaning if there is no debate over a 48 hour period about a decision that is being proposed via the Commons we embrace that decision.
All votes during a meeting are based upon a motion or move, then a seconding to bring a decision to a vote.

[Mariana Regalado (she/ella)]

Ah, “lazy consensus” – now that is a concept I most definitely needed a term for, thanks Stephen!
–Mariana

From: CUNY Academic Commons <commons@gc.cuny.edu<mailto:commons@gc.cuny.edu>>
Reply-To: “cunyacademiccommons+1e3e2cf07ff21941742bc2c1a39428baf528c7d73338e075047847b9526303f7@gmail.com<mailto:cunyacademiccommons+1e3e2cf07ff21941742bc2c1a39428baf528c7d73338e075047847b9526303f7@gmail.com>” <cunyacademiccommons+1e3e2cf07ff21941742bc2c1a39428baf528c7d73338e075047847b9526303f7@gmail.com<mailto:cunyacademiccommons+1e3e2cf07ff21941742bc2c1a39428baf528c7d73338e075047847b9526303f7@gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 8:11 AM
To: Mariana Regalado <regalado@brooklyn.cuny.edu<mailto:regalado@brooklyn.cuny.edu>>
Subject: Stephen Klein started the topic Robert’s Rules of Order in the forum Library Technology Subcommittee of the CUNY Committee on Academic Technology [CUNY Academic Commons]

[Stephen Francoeur (he/him)]

I’m OK with Stephen’s suggestions except for the quorum one. Part of the problem is that we don’t have any official “membership” in this committee. There are 47 people who are “members” of this group on the CUNY Academic Commons. If we had the quorum rule in place with half of the membership needing to be present, that would mean meetings would have to always have 24 people for decisions. Average attendance across the 7-8 meetings we’ve had is more like six people. Maybe we need to lower the threshold a bit to something more realistic?

• This reply was modified 8 years, 9 months ago by Stephen Francoeur (he/him).

[Stephen Klein]

Agreed, so a vote cannot take place without a minimum of how many folks present? 12?

[Stephen Francoeur (he/him)]

That still seems too high. We’ve only had 12 meeting attendees once or twice. Usually it’s 8-10. How about 8?

[Stephen Klein]

OK. Seems like we’ll probably follow the lazy quorum rule to allow for 8.

[Benjamin Franz]

I agree with S. Francouer. 8 is a very reasonable number for quorum. I would have been here this week, only I managed to sprain my achilles tendon.

Ben F.

[Stephen Francoeur (he/him)]

I’d like to speed up distribution of the meeting minutes. Can I distribute a draft of them here well before the next meeting and ask for feedback? Then at the next meeting, we can formally approve the minutes based on any changes meeting attendees may have. How’s that sound?

[Stephen Klein]

Works for me.

[Madeline Cohen]

Sounds good.

[Alex Berrio Matamoros]

I’m in agreement with Stephen Klein’s suggestions, with a quorum set at 8.

[Stefanie Havelka]

works for me too

Thanks

Stefanie

[Miriam (Mickey) Laskin]

And me (8 for a quorum).