Translation of excerpts from Robert Heinlein’s book, Take Your Government Back - part 9
Now back to our political clubs.
Invite all familiar supporters of your party to the first organizational meeting of the club. Hold a meeting in a small room, if you can afford to rent it, or from someone at home, preferably not at your place.
If eight people came to the first meeting, consider yourself lucky. Do not be discouraged: the plan of the American Revolution was developed by an assembly of even fewer people. You may be able to contact the central organization of your party so that they send their person to the first meeting - a charismatic, full of enthusiasm who is in the know of all the latest political news, which will help to hold a political evening not in boring formalities, but in lively conversation in a close circle, with the participation of all who came to the meeting.
')
But for starters, put to the vote the question of appointing you the temporary chairman of the meeting, and some bona fide person, preferably a woman, the temporary secretary of the club. After that, leading the meeting, being the temporary chairman, consider electing a permanent chairman and executive secretary (or executive deputy chairman). Your temporary secretary can be elected to the permanent meeting recorders. After that, discuss and vote by the official name of your political club, and appoint a committee to write the club’s charter (naturally, you yourself will also enter the committee).
I write so sure that the result of all these actions depends solely on you, because in this case it is. You plan everything yourself, deciding who will take which posts, personally organizing the nomination of proposals and voting on them. At the first meeting of your political club, most likely, there will be no opposition to you, because you have not provided anybody who could create problems. If you do not plan your actions carefully, then your club, most likely, will not live long. Do not behave too authoritarianly, and your proposed program of action will not cause any objections to the meeting. If one of the participants nevertheless unexpectedly comes forward with his own initiative, do not be discouraged, and do not try to deprive him of his right to speak. Most likely, you have found a great companion for yourself, which will help you create a full-fledged political club. Make sure that this member joins one of your club’s committees, and takes care of any pressing issues.
As regards the appointment of the club chairman, find a sociable, friendly extrovert for this position, who before that worked as president of the Rotary club, master of the masonic lodge, chairman of the organization of veterans, or director of the Sunday school. Just make sure that you have seen him in the work, that he knows how boringly to conduct meetings, that he is honest, and in practice he owns the parliamentary rules. But, I repeat, you can check all these qualities only when you see a candidate for the post of chairman in the work. Do not start creating a club until you have such a candidate ready.
You can also become the chairman yourself and lead the club meetings. In the course of a political career, you still have many times to preside at meetings of at least the club’s committees. Despite the fact that, apparently, many people are afraid to act as chairman of the meeting, it is easier than driving a car. To understand how this is done, you just have to find in any bookstore Robert's Rules of Regulation - a classic book on the conduct of parliamentary meetings, and read it carefully.
It is not necessary to memorize the rules of conducting the meetings outlined there: these are not dogmas, each of us can come up with his own rules. However, Robert's rules are quite universal, practical, and based on the right of each participant in the meeting to express their proposals and put them to a vote. If you keep in mind these considerations, you will not go wrong when leading the meetings, even if you do not have any idea about the parliamentary rules.
In addition to these rules, there are practical techniques that allow the chair of the meeting to extricate themselves from any difficult situation. For example, suppose that one of those present rises and accuses you of making a mistake (Mr. Chairman, question on a meeting order!), Requires something to change in the order of reference: return to the proposal of candidates, reject the proposed candidate late, stop or resume the discussion, change the order of doing business - in general, the essence of the claims is unimportant. Let the protestor speak, listen to him, because the questions of the order of conducting the meeting are paramount. However, even though you have listened to him, you do not have to do what he suggests. After all, you - Chairman! Assess the situation: if the proposals submitted will benefit the common cause, accept them. If not, then reject the proposed initiative, leaving, however, the author the opportunity to speak in its defense. Spend it all at a pace, in one breath, for example, like this: “The chairman of the meeting rejects your proposal, the nomination is closed, you have the right of appeal, do you want to make an appeal?”
If he nevertheless decides to appeal, address the meeting with the words: “An appeal is filed with the chairman’s decision, which will be considered immediately. The chairman decided: the nomination was closed (here you state your decision on the issue that caused the objection). All those who support the Chairperson’s decision are “Yes”. After a short pause, you ask “Who is against?”, And further - “No objection!”
If you tried to honestly discuss the proposal, the meeting would be bogged down in fruitless discussions. However, make sure that you count the votes cast against your decision, if any. After completing this entire procedure, refer to the objector: “Sorry, Mr. Smith, but the meeting declined your proposal,” and then proceed to the next agenda item.
If the objector has not yet calmed down (and he may even start shouting that you are encroaching on his freedom of speech), then, in order to call him in order, you can use any means, up to and including asking him to take him out of the hall to follow order parliamentary bailiffs (elected by the assembly from among the participants). I doubt that it comes to this, however, in my practice it once met. In this case, the meeting will fully support you, your authority will only increase, and the riotous subject will lose all influence on the audience.
But, most likely, the rejection of the proposal by the assembly, completely calming down the object. It is possible that he will not even be outraged, because you gave him the opportunity to speak out and appeal.
If the meeting voted against your decision, accept it with a smile, nothing terrible happened. Say “Mr. Smith, the meeting has supported you, the word is given to you. Walk forward to hear better. ” Let him take refuge in the consciousness of his own importance, and say how much he pleases while you rest. You can bet that with his own language he will bury his own sentence. In the meantime, with your extremely honest attitude to the conduct of the meeting, you have strengthened your authority even more, and it does not matter whether you have parliamentary rules or not.
Occasionally a much more delicate situation happens when one of the participants begins to demand to hear him on his personal question. This, for example, means that the discussion affected his honor and reputation. Such a situation is explosive, it may end in a fight between the speakers, and the complete defeat of your political club's reputation. In this case, declare: "According to the regulations, such issues should be considered by the Committee on Personal Conflicts, which should try to resolve the conflict peacefully before bringing these issues to the meeting." Probably, in this case, you will create a new precedent, because the internal charter of your club, most likely, does not provide procedures for resolving personal conflicts. So act now: appoint a personal conflict committee if it does not already exist. It should include the oldest and most trusted members of your club. State them the essence of the conflict, let them decide on it at the next meeting. Further discussion of the conflict at the meeting, declare outside the rules.
Generally speaking, you yourself do not act in accordance with the parliamentary regulations, so you may need to ask the meeting to support such a decision. But, since you are clearly acting as a conciliator, and are acting in the interests of all those gathered, you will most likely be supported. And in any case, do not allow anyone from those present to disrupt the meeting in favor of a sense of self-worth, having become like the biblical Samson who destroyed the temple in order to show its strength.
Very often, someone is trying to put up for discussion a question that is out of the agenda. In this case, politely but firmly indicate that this issue will be considered only after considering all the issues on the agenda. If you know for sure that this is not the question that your political club should deal with, then you can avoid discussing it at all by resorting to a little trick — by giving the floor to the final speaker (or a person from the central party organization) before the official closing of the meeting. You can justify this procedure as a service to the speaker, so that he could leave the meeting early. Besides, when the concluding speech is completed, the listeners are likely to be already too tired to allow someone else to interpret for a long time about the question that interests him personally. So, as soon as the agenda ends, the meeting is likely to receive a proposal to end the meeting, which, according to parliamentary regulations, is surely put to the vote.
To be extremely honest, after the proposal to complete the meeting goes, remind the audience that Mr. Resoner was going to discuss the issue of pants for Patagonians (or asking the mayor of the city to rename Bolotnaya Street to Prospect Rose, because Mr. Rezoner has land building plots on this Bolotnaya street). In addition to the proposal to end the meeting, do not allow the meeting to discuss any other issues. Then all that Mr. Resoner gets is a unanimous vote in favor of ending the meeting. And speeches outside the meeting have the peculiarity that implies the right of those who are not interested in them not to listen. So Mr. Resoner can talk further as he pleases - in front of an empty hall.
But, it seems, I was distracted, having gone far in the direction of the methods of maintaining power in the club by legitimate methods, which is a completely different topic than conducting meetings of the club. However, both of these issues are highly interrelated. Maintaining power is a necessary and legitimate practice. A democratic leader - if he wants to achieve something - must possess, in many respects, the same qualities as an authoritarian one. But at the same time, you can maintain your power in ways that do not infringe upon any democratic rights. In a democracy, you rule because you have the support and approval of club members. Than to be a dictator, it is much easier to rule, having popular support - recognition of your honesty and common sense. Therefore, never forget to remind the author of the proposal on the right of appeal rejected by your presidential decision, and you will always be a popular leader.
After you have given your word to one protestor, someone may begin to protest and also demand a word. Tell him “You will speak after the speaker”, then turn to the person to whom you have already given the floor and ask him to continue. Do not allow anyone to speak out of turn.
If the protester has already spoken before the meeting on the same issue, tell him that you will give him word as soon as the speakers who have not yet spoken. Such requirements are often met: the most vacant subjects are the most discussed.
And certainly, don't let anyone speak three times, without the permission of the meeting. Reject all such attempts, unless the situation requires indulgence.
To limit the length of the debate, you can ignore all the cries from the floor about "questions": these cries are outside the rules. If someone has received the right to speak, and made a proposal to raise an already discussed issue, and his proposal is recorded, in order to stop further debates, you should immediately, without discussing the issue itself, vote on the proposal to re-discuss this issue. Clearly explain this to the meeting, because one of those present may simply not understand you. Say something like the following: “The previous question has been discussed and recorded. There is a proposal to stop discussing the question of sending a delegation to the congress of city committees (or another question, or additions to it, which you have already discussed). ” If your proposal is accepted, the debate is terminated, and you immediately proceed to a vote on the main issue, the dispatch of the delegation itself.
All this action may seem overly verbose, but it is necessary. If you do not clearly and thoroughly explain to the people what exactly your chairman’s decision is, then every time a similar situation happens, more and more people will appear who do not like you and your political club because they do not fully understand what is happening on meeting, and feel disadvantaged. So in such cases, express yourself very clearly: it will take no more than fifteen seconds, but it will save your club from the seizure of power by clever men in it, cohesive accumulated irritation against you.
And by the way, since we remembered cohesive clever men, someday you will meet with the communist party cell. How better to deal with the Communists, I will tell more in the chapter "Some notes on democracy." It is enough to point out here that in order to avoid losing the discussion when meeting with the Communists and not to undermine your authority, you will need the support of your presidential decisions by members of your club. Do not argue with the Communists. Interrupt their presentations and deprive them of their right to speak (usually, for deviating from the agenda). If you allow yourself to get involved in an argument with them, they will ridicule you, because every member of the Communist Party knows the parliamentary rules very well and is sophisticated in parliamentary casuistry, while despising all democratic rules, using them for their own purposes.
So when a communist appears at your meeting, enlist the support of the meeting, and shut him up, despite his cries for freedom of speech and accusations of fascism. In the end, after all, it was your political club that rented the conference hall, and the communists let them rent their hall and gather there with their audience.
I recognize the freedom of speech for each of us, including the communists and fascists. And I think that our constitutional right to freedom of speech is reasonable, and the founding fathers of America knew what they did when they established this right in the Constitution. But my right to tell me what I think does not imply the right to break into the church at a time when the priest preaches to the congregation, interrupt him, and speak instead of him with a lecture on atheism. If I want to give such a lecture (and I don’t want!), Then for this I need to rent a room myself, or put a podium on the street and speak from it. But I have no right to express my own views, making it difficult for others to go about their business.
So, we have come a long way - from the first meeting of the political club, to the shameless manners of the communists, all of the above relates to maintaining the activities of the political club, and shows why it may be necessary to take over the chairmanship of the club in their hands, if there is no tactful and experienced person for this role. If you find such a candidate, then to create a successful political club, you don’t have to become the chairman yourself.
And two more words before finishing with the rules of conducting meetings: most of the proposals received at the meeting are conceived in a hurry and poorly stated. If you think that the proposal deserves to be thought out and better stated, you can point it out to the author, because he has not refined his proposal to a view that deserves discussion and vote, and advise him to consult with the decision committee to bring his proposal to mind. He may follow your advice, and may still submit his project to the meeting for consideration. In this case, this is an occasion for your informal speaker to come up with a proposal to send the draft, again, to the decision committee.If the project is unclear, confused, and not all of its aspects have been sufficiently developed (and consideration of projects is usually postponed for precisely these reasons), the meeting will gladly postpone consideration.
From those present at the meeting, you can sometimes hear valuable ideas that you cannot accept because they are not presented as an official proposal. In this case, you can repeat the sentence, reformulating it already as a formal sentence, in the form that you consider necessary, and ask the author of the idea if he had this in mind. He will gladly agree, or make some changes to the wording, after which you can submit the proposal for consideration by the meeting.
Usually, the chairperson can end the meeting when he sees fit, or, if necessary, do not allow it to end prematurely, without infringing upon the rights of any of the participants, if he observes a certain delicacy. After all, it is enough to remind that the hour is already late, as someone will surely receive a proposal to end the meeting, according to the parliamentary regulations, which has the highest priority, and, as a rule, is accepted by the meeting. On the other hand, on the part of any participant disgruntled by the course of the meeting, a spontaneous proposal to end the meeting, coming out, usually out of place, without giving the word, for example, can do this, for example: “Mr. ! If this relates to your goals, you can give him the floor, becausein the end, the proposal for completion is not automatically accepted, but by the vote of the meeting. But if you think that the issues being discussed do not tolerate delay, there will always be someone sitting behind, out of sight of the person who submitted the proposal, and waiting for his turn to speak on the current issue. Tell the annoyed citizen that you will let him speak in turn, and give the floor to the person sitting behind him.
Maybe someone will someday invent an electronic device with Robert's Rules of Procedure built into it that can automatically and infallibly conduct meetings. When this happens, the policy will lose much of its liveliness and piquancy. But until then, conducting meetings remains an art, with which a good chairman can greatly influence the outcome of the intentions and actions of all participants in the meeting, using universal respect, because he always remembers that, ultimately, the decision on issues is made by the meeting .
And one more thing: in those two cases, when I advise you to transfer the proposal to the decision committee, you should not use this technique in order to reject the proposal or put it under cloth. You postpone the discussion of the proposal so that all interested parties can discuss it privately, clarify unclear issues and settle differences. And probably the committee will succeed. If not, then you should raise a pending question at the next meeting, comprehensively discuss and consider it. And let it be what will be - then it is democracy.
If you don’t find a chairperson for your club who is able to conduct meetings in the spirit of the rules set out above, you can become them yourself, but still continue to look for a suitable candidate: as a simple participant, you have much greater freedom of action, and you can do more - but only provided that at the first meeting you were able to elect honest and adequate people for the posts necessary for the work of the club. Now it’s time for you to start planning the first public meeting of your political club.
Continuation
Part 1, where there are links to all other parts
Invite all familiar supporters of your party to the first organizational meeting of the club. Hold a meeting in a small room, if you can afford to rent it, or from someone at home, preferably not at your place.
If eight people came to the first meeting, consider yourself lucky. Do not be discouraged: the plan of the American Revolution was developed by an assembly of even fewer people. You may be able to contact the central organization of your party so that they send their person to the first meeting - a charismatic, full of enthusiasm who is in the know of all the latest political news, which will help to hold a political evening not in boring formalities, but in lively conversation in a close circle, with the participation of all who came to the meeting.
')
But for starters, put to the vote the question of appointing you the temporary chairman of the meeting, and some bona fide person, preferably a woman, the temporary secretary of the club. After that, leading the meeting, being the temporary chairman, consider electing a permanent chairman and executive secretary (or executive deputy chairman). Your temporary secretary can be elected to the permanent meeting recorders. After that, discuss and vote by the official name of your political club, and appoint a committee to write the club’s charter (naturally, you yourself will also enter the committee).
I write so sure that the result of all these actions depends solely on you, because in this case it is. You plan everything yourself, deciding who will take which posts, personally organizing the nomination of proposals and voting on them. At the first meeting of your political club, most likely, there will be no opposition to you, because you have not provided anybody who could create problems. If you do not plan your actions carefully, then your club, most likely, will not live long. Do not behave too authoritarianly, and your proposed program of action will not cause any objections to the meeting. If one of the participants nevertheless unexpectedly comes forward with his own initiative, do not be discouraged, and do not try to deprive him of his right to speak. Most likely, you have found a great companion for yourself, which will help you create a full-fledged political club. Make sure that this member joins one of your club’s committees, and takes care of any pressing issues.
As regards the appointment of the club chairman, find a sociable, friendly extrovert for this position, who before that worked as president of the Rotary club, master of the masonic lodge, chairman of the organization of veterans, or director of the Sunday school. Just make sure that you have seen him in the work, that he knows how boringly to conduct meetings, that he is honest, and in practice he owns the parliamentary rules. But, I repeat, you can check all these qualities only when you see a candidate for the post of chairman in the work. Do not start creating a club until you have such a candidate ready.
You can also become the chairman yourself and lead the club meetings. In the course of a political career, you still have many times to preside at meetings of at least the club’s committees. Despite the fact that, apparently, many people are afraid to act as chairman of the meeting, it is easier than driving a car. To understand how this is done, you just have to find in any bookstore Robert's Rules of Regulation - a classic book on the conduct of parliamentary meetings, and read it carefully.
It is not necessary to memorize the rules of conducting the meetings outlined there: these are not dogmas, each of us can come up with his own rules. However, Robert's rules are quite universal, practical, and based on the right of each participant in the meeting to express their proposals and put them to a vote. If you keep in mind these considerations, you will not go wrong when leading the meetings, even if you do not have any idea about the parliamentary rules.
In addition to these rules, there are practical techniques that allow the chair of the meeting to extricate themselves from any difficult situation. For example, suppose that one of those present rises and accuses you of making a mistake (Mr. Chairman, question on a meeting order!), Requires something to change in the order of reference: return to the proposal of candidates, reject the proposed candidate late, stop or resume the discussion, change the order of doing business - in general, the essence of the claims is unimportant. Let the protestor speak, listen to him, because the questions of the order of conducting the meeting are paramount. However, even though you have listened to him, you do not have to do what he suggests. After all, you - Chairman! Assess the situation: if the proposals submitted will benefit the common cause, accept them. If not, then reject the proposed initiative, leaving, however, the author the opportunity to speak in its defense. Spend it all at a pace, in one breath, for example, like this: “The chairman of the meeting rejects your proposal, the nomination is closed, you have the right of appeal, do you want to make an appeal?”
If he nevertheless decides to appeal, address the meeting with the words: “An appeal is filed with the chairman’s decision, which will be considered immediately. The chairman decided: the nomination was closed (here you state your decision on the issue that caused the objection). All those who support the Chairperson’s decision are “Yes”. After a short pause, you ask “Who is against?”, And further - “No objection!”
If you tried to honestly discuss the proposal, the meeting would be bogged down in fruitless discussions. However, make sure that you count the votes cast against your decision, if any. After completing this entire procedure, refer to the objector: “Sorry, Mr. Smith, but the meeting declined your proposal,” and then proceed to the next agenda item.
If the objector has not yet calmed down (and he may even start shouting that you are encroaching on his freedom of speech), then, in order to call him in order, you can use any means, up to and including asking him to take him out of the hall to follow order parliamentary bailiffs (elected by the assembly from among the participants). I doubt that it comes to this, however, in my practice it once met. In this case, the meeting will fully support you, your authority will only increase, and the riotous subject will lose all influence on the audience.
But, most likely, the rejection of the proposal by the assembly, completely calming down the object. It is possible that he will not even be outraged, because you gave him the opportunity to speak out and appeal.
If the meeting voted against your decision, accept it with a smile, nothing terrible happened. Say “Mr. Smith, the meeting has supported you, the word is given to you. Walk forward to hear better. ” Let him take refuge in the consciousness of his own importance, and say how much he pleases while you rest. You can bet that with his own language he will bury his own sentence. In the meantime, with your extremely honest attitude to the conduct of the meeting, you have strengthened your authority even more, and it does not matter whether you have parliamentary rules or not.
Occasionally a much more delicate situation happens when one of the participants begins to demand to hear him on his personal question. This, for example, means that the discussion affected his honor and reputation. Such a situation is explosive, it may end in a fight between the speakers, and the complete defeat of your political club's reputation. In this case, declare: "According to the regulations, such issues should be considered by the Committee on Personal Conflicts, which should try to resolve the conflict peacefully before bringing these issues to the meeting." Probably, in this case, you will create a new precedent, because the internal charter of your club, most likely, does not provide procedures for resolving personal conflicts. So act now: appoint a personal conflict committee if it does not already exist. It should include the oldest and most trusted members of your club. State them the essence of the conflict, let them decide on it at the next meeting. Further discussion of the conflict at the meeting, declare outside the rules.
Generally speaking, you yourself do not act in accordance with the parliamentary regulations, so you may need to ask the meeting to support such a decision. But, since you are clearly acting as a conciliator, and are acting in the interests of all those gathered, you will most likely be supported. And in any case, do not allow anyone from those present to disrupt the meeting in favor of a sense of self-worth, having become like the biblical Samson who destroyed the temple in order to show its strength.
Very often, someone is trying to put up for discussion a question that is out of the agenda. In this case, politely but firmly indicate that this issue will be considered only after considering all the issues on the agenda. If you know for sure that this is not the question that your political club should deal with, then you can avoid discussing it at all by resorting to a little trick — by giving the floor to the final speaker (or a person from the central party organization) before the official closing of the meeting. You can justify this procedure as a service to the speaker, so that he could leave the meeting early. Besides, when the concluding speech is completed, the listeners are likely to be already too tired to allow someone else to interpret for a long time about the question that interests him personally. So, as soon as the agenda ends, the meeting is likely to receive a proposal to end the meeting, which, according to parliamentary regulations, is surely put to the vote.
To be extremely honest, after the proposal to complete the meeting goes, remind the audience that Mr. Resoner was going to discuss the issue of pants for Patagonians (or asking the mayor of the city to rename Bolotnaya Street to Prospect Rose, because Mr. Rezoner has land building plots on this Bolotnaya street). In addition to the proposal to end the meeting, do not allow the meeting to discuss any other issues. Then all that Mr. Resoner gets is a unanimous vote in favor of ending the meeting. And speeches outside the meeting have the peculiarity that implies the right of those who are not interested in them not to listen. So Mr. Resoner can talk further as he pleases - in front of an empty hall.
But, it seems, I was distracted, having gone far in the direction of the methods of maintaining power in the club by legitimate methods, which is a completely different topic than conducting meetings of the club. However, both of these issues are highly interrelated. Maintaining power is a necessary and legitimate practice. A democratic leader - if he wants to achieve something - must possess, in many respects, the same qualities as an authoritarian one. But at the same time, you can maintain your power in ways that do not infringe upon any democratic rights. In a democracy, you rule because you have the support and approval of club members. Than to be a dictator, it is much easier to rule, having popular support - recognition of your honesty and common sense. Therefore, never forget to remind the author of the proposal on the right of appeal rejected by your presidential decision, and you will always be a popular leader.
After you have given your word to one protestor, someone may begin to protest and also demand a word. Tell him “You will speak after the speaker”, then turn to the person to whom you have already given the floor and ask him to continue. Do not allow anyone to speak out of turn.
If the protester has already spoken before the meeting on the same issue, tell him that you will give him word as soon as the speakers who have not yet spoken. Such requirements are often met: the most vacant subjects are the most discussed.
And certainly, don't let anyone speak three times, without the permission of the meeting. Reject all such attempts, unless the situation requires indulgence.
To limit the length of the debate, you can ignore all the cries from the floor about "questions": these cries are outside the rules. If someone has received the right to speak, and made a proposal to raise an already discussed issue, and his proposal is recorded, in order to stop further debates, you should immediately, without discussing the issue itself, vote on the proposal to re-discuss this issue. Clearly explain this to the meeting, because one of those present may simply not understand you. Say something like the following: “The previous question has been discussed and recorded. There is a proposal to stop discussing the question of sending a delegation to the congress of city committees (or another question, or additions to it, which you have already discussed). ” If your proposal is accepted, the debate is terminated, and you immediately proceed to a vote on the main issue, the dispatch of the delegation itself.
All this action may seem overly verbose, but it is necessary. If you do not clearly and thoroughly explain to the people what exactly your chairman’s decision is, then every time a similar situation happens, more and more people will appear who do not like you and your political club because they do not fully understand what is happening on meeting, and feel disadvantaged. So in such cases, express yourself very clearly: it will take no more than fifteen seconds, but it will save your club from the seizure of power by clever men in it, cohesive accumulated irritation against you.
And by the way, since we remembered cohesive clever men, someday you will meet with the communist party cell. How better to deal with the Communists, I will tell more in the chapter "Some notes on democracy." It is enough to point out here that in order to avoid losing the discussion when meeting with the Communists and not to undermine your authority, you will need the support of your presidential decisions by members of your club. Do not argue with the Communists. Interrupt their presentations and deprive them of their right to speak (usually, for deviating from the agenda). If you allow yourself to get involved in an argument with them, they will ridicule you, because every member of the Communist Party knows the parliamentary rules very well and is sophisticated in parliamentary casuistry, while despising all democratic rules, using them for their own purposes.
So when a communist appears at your meeting, enlist the support of the meeting, and shut him up, despite his cries for freedom of speech and accusations of fascism. In the end, after all, it was your political club that rented the conference hall, and the communists let them rent their hall and gather there with their audience.
I recognize the freedom of speech for each of us, including the communists and fascists. And I think that our constitutional right to freedom of speech is reasonable, and the founding fathers of America knew what they did when they established this right in the Constitution. But my right to tell me what I think does not imply the right to break into the church at a time when the priest preaches to the congregation, interrupt him, and speak instead of him with a lecture on atheism. If I want to give such a lecture (and I don’t want!), Then for this I need to rent a room myself, or put a podium on the street and speak from it. But I have no right to express my own views, making it difficult for others to go about their business.
So, we have come a long way - from the first meeting of the political club, to the shameless manners of the communists, all of the above relates to maintaining the activities of the political club, and shows why it may be necessary to take over the chairmanship of the club in their hands, if there is no tactful and experienced person for this role. If you find such a candidate, then to create a successful political club, you don’t have to become the chairman yourself.
And two more words before finishing with the rules of conducting meetings: most of the proposals received at the meeting are conceived in a hurry and poorly stated. If you think that the proposal deserves to be thought out and better stated, you can point it out to the author, because he has not refined his proposal to a view that deserves discussion and vote, and advise him to consult with the decision committee to bring his proposal to mind. He may follow your advice, and may still submit his project to the meeting for consideration. In this case, this is an occasion for your informal speaker to come up with a proposal to send the draft, again, to the decision committee.If the project is unclear, confused, and not all of its aspects have been sufficiently developed (and consideration of projects is usually postponed for precisely these reasons), the meeting will gladly postpone consideration.
From those present at the meeting, you can sometimes hear valuable ideas that you cannot accept because they are not presented as an official proposal. In this case, you can repeat the sentence, reformulating it already as a formal sentence, in the form that you consider necessary, and ask the author of the idea if he had this in mind. He will gladly agree, or make some changes to the wording, after which you can submit the proposal for consideration by the meeting.
Usually, the chairperson can end the meeting when he sees fit, or, if necessary, do not allow it to end prematurely, without infringing upon the rights of any of the participants, if he observes a certain delicacy. After all, it is enough to remind that the hour is already late, as someone will surely receive a proposal to end the meeting, according to the parliamentary regulations, which has the highest priority, and, as a rule, is accepted by the meeting. On the other hand, on the part of any participant disgruntled by the course of the meeting, a spontaneous proposal to end the meeting, coming out, usually out of place, without giving the word, for example, can do this, for example: “Mr. ! If this relates to your goals, you can give him the floor, becausein the end, the proposal for completion is not automatically accepted, but by the vote of the meeting. But if you think that the issues being discussed do not tolerate delay, there will always be someone sitting behind, out of sight of the person who submitted the proposal, and waiting for his turn to speak on the current issue. Tell the annoyed citizen that you will let him speak in turn, and give the floor to the person sitting behind him.
Maybe someone will someday invent an electronic device with Robert's Rules of Procedure built into it that can automatically and infallibly conduct meetings. When this happens, the policy will lose much of its liveliness and piquancy. But until then, conducting meetings remains an art, with which a good chairman can greatly influence the outcome of the intentions and actions of all participants in the meeting, using universal respect, because he always remembers that, ultimately, the decision on issues is made by the meeting .
And one more thing: in those two cases, when I advise you to transfer the proposal to the decision committee, you should not use this technique in order to reject the proposal or put it under cloth. You postpone the discussion of the proposal so that all interested parties can discuss it privately, clarify unclear issues and settle differences. And probably the committee will succeed. If not, then you should raise a pending question at the next meeting, comprehensively discuss and consider it. And let it be what will be - then it is democracy.
If you don’t find a chairperson for your club who is able to conduct meetings in the spirit of the rules set out above, you can become them yourself, but still continue to look for a suitable candidate: as a simple participant, you have much greater freedom of action, and you can do more - but only provided that at the first meeting you were able to elect honest and adequate people for the posts necessary for the work of the club. Now it’s time for you to start planning the first public meeting of your political club.
Continuation
Part 1, where there are links to all other parts
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/298152/
All Articles