The email discussion of the absention standing rule, in chronological order:
09.14.2005

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Assembly,
 
   As you know, in the previous assembly meeting Mr.Joshua Friess had
proposed a new standing rule about abstentions. The suggestion made in
the previous meeting was:"For any measure for which a vote of 'abstain'
effectively counts as 'nay', the Parliamentary Secretary shall inform
Assembly as such immediately prior to the vote.  Should the Parliamentary
Secretary fail to do so, the vote shall be deemed void as soon as this
omission is discovered and reported to the Executive Committee, and a
revote must be held as soon as is reasonably possible."

  I would recommend that the rule be stated as just the first
sentence,ie. "For any measure for which a vote of 'abstain' effectively
counts as 'nay', the Parliamentary Secretary shall inform Assembly as
such immediately prior to the vote".

   The main concern with the second line of the original version is this:
Suppose in one meeting a particular decision is made and then other
decisions follow in subsequent meetings based on the original decision.
Then after 2 months somebody remembers/realises that the Parliamentary
Secretary had forgotten to mention that abstentions count as "no" for
that particular vote and demands that the decision be voided. What will
happen to all those decisions(which may also involve money) that took
place following the original one? This will end up wasting a lot of time
and energy of the assembly which, given our hectic grad life, can be used
for more productive purposes.

    If you state the rule in the new(short) version, then it becomes a
part of the duty of the Parliamentary Secretary. In case he/she fails,
any one in the assembly can call a Point of Order.The advantage of this
method is that Roberts Rules clearly states when/how point of order can
be raised/dealt with. Point of Order should be raised (in most cases)
promptly when a breach of rules occurs.

Please note that the issue is totally open for debate
The above statements are just suggestions
Regards,
Medini Padmanabhan
Parliamentary Secretary 
GSG

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second sentence does open up the possibility that Medini suggests.  
Josh, is your intent to make clear what kind of standard Assembly holds
its officers to?  For with the second sentence, the burden would be
squarely on the Parliamentary Secretary to be focused and precise in
carrying out his or her duties--and that seems to me all to the good.  
However, it does not seem worth penalizing other groups who may be
affected, or creating a tool that would allow an aggrieved party in the
minority to pull the rug out from under something down the line, when
people could no longer clearly remember the events of the meeting, by
contesting the completeness of the PS's instructions.

Would you accept as a friendly amendment some sort of statute of
limitations on the second sentence?  Within the meeting itself, when a
vote can be re-taken?  No later than one month, when the minutes are
voted on at the next meeting, and a vote can be re-taken?

Meredith [Safran]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meredith E Safran (msafran@Princeton.EDU) wrote:

<The second sentence does open up the possibility that Medini suggests.  
Josh, is your intent to make clear what kind of standard Assembly holds
its officers to?  For with the second sentence, the burden would be
squarely on the Parliamentary Secretary to be focused and precise in
carrying out his or her duties--and that seems to me all to the good.  
However, it does not seem worth penalizing other groups who may be
affected, or creating a tool that would allow an aggrieved party in the
minority to pull the rug out from under something down the line, when
people could no longer clearly remember the events of the meeting, by
contesting the completeness of the PS's instructions.>

No, the purpose isn't to punish the P.S., affected groups, or anything
like that.  The purpose is that I don't think that a vote of 10-9-2
should have force if the 2 members who abstained would have voted "yes"  
had they been properly informed of the consequence of their abstention.

And, it's my understanding that funding requests (which are the main 
instance in which some group of students might be affected) have 
abstentions count as neutral votes, and would be unaffected by this 
standing rule anyway.

<Would you accept as a friendly amendment some sort of statute of
limitations on the second sentence?  Within the meeting itself, when a
vote can be re-taken?  No later than one month, when the minutes are
voted on at the next meeting, and a vote can be re-taken?>

I think it would be worthwhile to discuss for a few minutes all three 
alternatives -- no time limit (original), finite time limit (this 
suggestion) and no explicit overturning of votes (Medini's 
recommendation).  To be honest I'm not sure which I prefer at the moment.

If we do adopt a version that somehow invalidates the vote, we should 
include a provision that only invalidates the vote if moving all 
"Abstain" votes from the "no" column to the "yes" column would actually 
change the result.  In other words, a vote of 10-0-1 should not be 
overturned even if the '1' were effectively counted as 'no', and the 
P.S. failed to inform Assembly as such.  In all likelihood, such a 
provision would probably mean that a "second sentence" would rarely if 
ever have to be invoked.  Something like:

"and if counting all 'abstain' votes as 'yes' votes would change the 
result of the vote" in between "Should the Parliamentary Secretary fail 
to do so" and "the vote shall be deemed void..."

should be inserted into the original text (and any further modifications 
thereof).

Josh [Friess]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Josh,

It seems to me that you have correctly identified the problem: members 
of Assembly are far too often unaware of the nuances of their rights as 
members of Assembly.  But the first question that must be asked before 
fashioning a response, is whose responsibility is it to be informed in 
the first place?  Is it the Parliamentary Secretary's responsibility to 
inform you of your right to object to a ruling of the chair?  Is it the 
Parliamentary Secretary's responsibility to inform you of your right to 
ask for a secret ballot?  Or, alternatively, is it your responsibility 
as a member of Assembly to take your responsiblity to inform yourself 
about the process?

With every right comes a responsibility.  With the right to vote comes 
the right to learn about the decision you are making and then to vote 
responsibly.

I ask, should the Parliamentary Secretary be responsible for informing 
you of this standing rule (should it be adopted) before each vote?  This 
quickly becomes a slippery slope.  It is, sir, that the writters of 
Robert's Rules have considered these points in detail and the rules for 
order that they have provided have considered a lot more of the 
exceptions than nearly any of us (perhaps you are the exception) could 
reasonably be expected to understand.

I therefore recommend to Assembly that as part of your responsibilities 
of representing your fellow graduate students, that you take a moment to 
familiarize yourself with Robert's Rules.  It will take less time to 
actually read the rules than it will to fully consider the implications 
of adding more rules that will be ignored by Assembly a year from now, 
anyway.  Legislative solutions are often unnecessary when the citizens 
live up to their individual responsibilities.

If this is not a sufficient response, perhaps the Parliamentary 
Secretary would be willing to take the initiative to form a study group 
of Robert's rules so that members of Assembly can do their duty.

With highest regards,

Leonard Pease

[former Parliamentary Secretary]