Read on Twitter
1/Yes, the ‘Tuesday Teachable Tweet in #ParliamentaryProcedure’ is back, hoping to distract you at least temporarily from doom-scrolling pandemic news! Today, in Episode 17: ‘Why we must accept a majority decision’, a 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🧵" title="Thread" aria-label="Emoji: Thread">of 20 tweets, continuing a theme from Ep. 11, posted Jan 19.
2/A longer version of today’s post appears in my blog (including bonus remarks on the folly of decision making by ‘consensus’) – click on the link below to go there directly & you can skip the remaining tweets: https://michaelmouritsen.ca/blog/f/why-we-must-accept-a-majority-decision">https://michaelmouritsen.ca/blog/f/wh...
3/You may recall that in Ep. 11 (about demanding that one’s personal vote appear in the board minutes), I promised a separate article on the reason for majority votes and why it seems so difficult for some to accept. ICYMI: https://michaelmouritsen.ca/blog/f/demanding-that-your-vote-appear-in-the-minutes">https://michaelmouritsen.ca/blog/f/de...
4/ #RobertsRulesOfOrder says it’s the majority who decide the general will of a body (p. xlix). In debate, the minority must be heard but majority vote decides an issue & the minority must accept it. After a vote, it’s no longer the ‘majority’ decision, but the *board’s* decision.
5/Focus is on boards, but applies to committees, membership mtgs - any body that makes decisions. To better understand, let’s look at four interrelated principles that can also be said to represent four sequential stages in the decision-making process of democratic organizations.
6/First, as parliamentarian James Lochrie & governance guru John Carver both stress, members need to agree *beforehand* on how to make group decisions, committing in advance to respect the decision-making process & to accept the outcome. (E.g. adopt Robert/other rules of order.)
7/Lochrie’s ‘Meeting Procedures’ (2003) calls this a ‘social contract’. Carver’s ‘Boards That Make a Difference’ (1990) describes this prior commitment as supporting ‘procedural integrity’. Supporting the process only when you agree with the outcome is not supporting the process.
8/Everyone’s entitled to an opinion. In any organization, the challenge is to balance the individual right to an opinion with the need for the group to make collective decisions. As Carver notes, not all ideas can prevail. How then to deal with inevitable differences of opinion?
9/Our 2nd principle. Lochrie: Democratic bodies agree to ‘decide between choices by selecting the option that has the largest following – that is, the choice with which more than half of the group agrees[:] ... by voting and using the rule of the majority’ – but with a condition.
10/That condition is Principle #3. An essential part of agreeing to make decisions by majority rule is the prior agreement that the minority have an opportunity to be heard – to disagree, criticize, offer alternatives, try to persuade other members. Lochrie:
11/This includes opportunity to propose amendments to improve a motion to encompass different perspectives & benefit from a variety of ideas. Also, keep in mind majority & minority constantly shift (on proposals & specific amendments) & neither ‘side’ is necessarily united.
12/The 4th principle is that, following debate, airing of views, & opportunity for amendments, a decision is made according to the previously-agreed process (majority vote), in order to reach a *unified position*. Lochrie & Carver both speak eloquently to this:
13/Following the vote, in other words, there is an acknowledgement that the board has in fact made a decision, that everyone accepts it, and that the Board should then *speak with one voice* about the decision. This does not mean, however, pretending it’s unanimous.
14/Disagreement is normal/expected in healthy organizations. But disagreement has to occur *in* meetings during debate, not in sidebar discussions outside the meeting room or in post-meeting griping with other board members (or worse, with non-board members in the organization).
15/To speak with one voice means all board members are confirming the legitimacy of the decision-making process – that the decision was made properly. As Carver notes, it weakens the effectiveness of the board & its ability to lead if members can’t come together after a decision.
16/In theory, all of this likely makes sense to most us, at least as outlined here without reference to a specific issue. In the heat of discussion over a disputed proposal, however, members are often unable to rise above the differences – for any number of reasons.
17/Where boards report to a parent body (e.g., a convention or AGM), board members *may* have a right to speak/vote against decisions of their own board at those other meetings. I’ve heard some board members say they do so in order to ‘vote their conscience’.
18/On such occasions, it’s useful to keep in mind Henry Robert’s caution that although a right exists ‘it may not always be prudent or helpful for it to be exercised’ & to consider ‘what can be tolerated in the interests of the entire body’ (RONR 12, p. xlix).
19/ It’s not always about *you* as individual member. Besides, what are you saying to fellow board members who didn’t vote your way – that they did *not* vote their conscience? That you’re the only member with a conscience/honour/integrity? Doesn’t that seem a bit self-righteous?
20/ As noted above, feel free to check out the longer version of this thread in my blog and let me know if you have any comments, questions, or suggested topics for future posts!
Until next week. https://michaelmouritsen.ca/blog/f/why-we-must-accept-a-majority-decision">https://michaelmouritsen.ca/blog/f/wh...
Until next week. https://michaelmouritsen.ca/blog/f/why-we-must-accept-a-majority-decision">https://michaelmouritsen.ca/blog/f/wh...
