 "Photo: UP file photo")
FEATURE
I’ve sat through Student Government meetings for two years, and I’ve seen a few Board of Trustees (BOT) meetings, too. Though equally boring to the average student, it’s funny how differently they’re run — even though they technically follow the same stupidly complex set of rules.
Robert’s Rules of Order is more than 100 years old and is still widely used as a how-to manual for business and govern
ment meetings. FAU uses it, too — well, some use it better than others, let’s say.
SG lives by a condensed 208-page version of Robert’s Rules — the full version is currently more than 800 pages — and they put almost every argument to a roll-call vote, where they read out what a “yes” or a “no” means and then alphabetically request each person’s decision. They have to stand and make a formal motion in front of everyone just to go to the bathroom. They’ll object to giving a speaker five minutes just so they can give him three. For better or worse, they’ve got the rules down.
But the BOT doesn’t seem to know the basics. They couldn’t even figure out the protocol for debating the next president of the university.
On March 3, after everyone on the board had given individual opinions on the final presidential candidates, BOT Chair Nancy Blosser opened deliberations with a drawn-out “Soooo ... what do we do now?” Decisive.
Well, at least one guy was. Trustee Bill Bryant immediately nominated Mary Jane Saunders for president, Trustee Sherry Plymale seconded it, and the rest of the trustees looked on in confused silence.
Some of them clearly wanted to discuss more before voting, but they didn’t know the magic words for the legalistic “undo” button. At one point, a trustee asked if he could just not vote.
“Refresh my memory: Could you abstain?” asked Trustee Scott Adams.
David Kian, the university lawyer who’s always on hand to keep things legal, said no. So, Adams asked another question.
“What happens if I just refuse to vote? Kidding,” said Adams, as the board chuckled ruefully.
University Counsel Kian suggested that they could amend the motion to nominate Saunders — in other words, change it so they didn’t have to vote right away. But apparently none of the trustees knew how. Only one person even tried — someone who’s supposed to attend SG House of Representatives meetings at least once a month, actually.
“I would like to make a motion that, um, we perhaps table, or recommend, uh, Dr. Saunders for presidency, with a discussion on, well ... anyone can jump in,” said Student Body President Tiffany Weimar.
When nobody did, she stumbled on bravely: “But, um, with the discussion on Saunders’ pros and cons, or, at least, a discussion on people who feel strongly for Dr. Saunders, on what are your major, um, well, what would be the top, um, reason, for voting Saunders versus Miller,” said Weimar.
Silence followed. “Got that down in a paragraph?” she joked. I couldn’t.
Kian tactfully responded to her gibberish: “I didn’t quite hear what your motion was, precisely.” He added that they were “free to discuss,” though.
SG’s rules expert weighs in
I thought this was all pretty lame coming from the people who run FAU. But I decided to ask for a second opinion from someone who knows the rules way better than I do. He had a different perspective.
“It is impossible for everyone to know everything about [the rules],” said Boca House Parliamentarian Nicholas Scalice. “Parliamentary procedure is incredibly complex in certain aspects, but most of it is simply common sense.”
Scalice, who’s majoring in criminal justice, admittedly owns more than a dozen books on these rules. His role in the House is similar to Kian’s for the BOT — and he takes it seriously. So, I take him seriously, even if I disagree.
He defended Weimar’s inarticulate motion, saying her “intent was clear.”
“We just have to remember that the important thing is the intent of the message, and we must work to get the wording aligned with that,” said Scalice.
While I agree intent is important, I think it’s more important for university leaders to walk into a meeting knowing how to run it. At least know the basics, like that you can object when somebody suggests something absurd, like voting for the next president of the university without debating it.
The voting process itself just made it worse. They decided to do it by a show of hands. A few hands went up immediately. Some trustees waited several moments and then, looking at each other, raised their hands, too.
Scalice had two problems with this. One: According to the rules, Blosser as chair should’ve re-stated what exactly the vote was for and what “yes” and “no” meant.
“In this case, the chair simply said: ‘We’re going to do a hand vote. All those in favor, say aye,’” said Scalice.
He was surprised that they didn’t hear out the opposition, either.
“No negative vote was called,” said Scalice, noting the rules insist on it. He quoted: “‘The chair must always call for the negative vote, no matter how nearly unanimous the affirmative vote may appear.’”
Scalice added that “this was not a huge issue” since the vote appeared to be unanimous.
Ambiguously unanimous. An obvious majority raised their hands, but some put them back down. Others hesitated because they didn’t actually want Saunders, and weren’t sure if it had to be unanimous.
Trustee Armand Grossman, who supported candidate Gary Miller, asked whether he had to vote for Saunders. Blosser said he did not. Bryant insisted they had to make it unanimous. And when Blosser said, “You don’t have to do that,” Bryant argued, “Yes we did, before. That’s what we did.”
Scalice said the rules usually just require a majority, and that a unanimous vote is difficult to achieve. He added, “Sometimes a two-thirds vote is required, but this is rare.”
In either case, a roll-call vote — which SG always uses — would’ve been clearer, provided a definite record, and kept people from changing their minds after voting.
To top it off, the BOT didn’t even adjourn the meeting according to the rules. While one trustee did make a motion to adjourn after prompting from Blosser, nobody properly seconded the motion, and Blosser didn’t declare the meeting over. People just got up and walked out.
Parliamentarian Scalice offers a PowerPoint workshop for SG every semester, going over the basics and trying to “show people that parliamentary procedure is not something to be afraid of.” Sometimes students are the best teachers — maybe the BOT should ask him for a few lessons.
1 comments