(Adopted 11/20/99)

These rules are a modification of Robert's Rules of Order. A strict following of Robert's Rules of Order is incredibly cumbersome and inefficient for a small group. Council members need to use common sense in the application of these rules. Nothing in our formal rules can substitute for the need to have people stick to the subject at hand, not talk longer than necessary, try to cooperate in moving an agenda forward rather than deliberately use procedural rules to gum things up. But here are the basic rules:

1. Meetings shall have an agenda, so items can be taken one at a time and in some reasonable order. Officers and staff will do their best to have a written agenda sent out before each Council meeting accompanied by any necessary documents we will be discussing so people can prepare for the meeting. The first item of business on each agenda will be an opportunity to accept or change the proposed agenda. The order of items may be changed, items may be deleted for lack of sufficient information to act on them. Usually the President (with staff support) shall establish the order for agenda items and the order should not be changed capriciously. An attempt will be made to distinguish between items which are purely informational and items which will require action by the Council.
2. When the Council moves to an item for discussion, the Chair or staff person usually introduces it, or some other member if that is more appropriate. Items may be introduced with a written recommendation for action, or at any time any member other than the Chair may, after being recognized by the Chair, make a motion for action on the item. In some cases, it really helps to have a recommended motion presented with the written material on an item or for some member of the Council to propose a motion for action to clarify the discussion. But in many cases, some discussion should take place before a motion is made so that the motion adequately addresses the concerns of everyone present, or at least a majority of the Council.
3. It is not helpful to make motions which clearly have little support from the majority of the Council, since they are likely to be defeated and discussion of them is really a diversion. Motions must be seconded for discussion. The lack of a second kills a motion and returns the Council to general discussion or a new motion. The Chair may not make motions but may second them.
4. One of the major responsibilities of the Chair is to move the Council to complete action on an agenda item. If the discussion seems to be going in circles, people are repeating themselves, etc., the Chair may suggest that it is, perhaps, time for a motion to resolve a discussion. Although the Chair may not make motions, he or she may suggest the content of a motion which other members may act on or not as they see fit.
5. The Chair really runs the meetings. Meetings shall be chaired by the President of the UC-AFT Council, or in his or her absence, by one of the Vice-Presidents or another member elected by the Council for that purpose. He or she should generally defer to other members, saving comments (other than a brief introduction of an item) for last. Good chairs do manage to get input into a discussion, but their major responsibility is making the meeting run efficiently, calling on people in an even-handed fashion, encouraging people to make their comments brief and to the point, cutting people off when they are really going on too long. All of this must be done politely but firmly when necessary. Good chairing requires having a good sense of what the majority of the Council seems to want in terms of knowing when to cut off debate, encourage more debate, ask a person to clarify a comment or a motion. Council members should respect the Chair and generally follow his or her advice. When it is clear that a ruling of the Chair does not reflect the majority of the Council member's feelings, a motion may be made to overturn a Chair's ruling. This should be done infrequently. If it starts to happen frequently, it is time to think about electing a new Chair.
6. Once a motion is made and seconded, it is usually discussed (unless it is so obviously wonderful that everyone is just prepared to vote on it).Motions may be debated and they may be amended. An amendment must be an attempt to improve a motion. The chair may rule an amendment out of order if it completely undoes the intent of the main motion. (for example, a motion to add the word "not" in front of some proposed action is not acceptable.) The Council may only discuss one amendment at a time. If people don't like the amendment, they may speak against it and vote it down, but they may not amend an amendment. The following are additional procedures on amendments and motions:
1. The Chair may allow "friendly amendments" in which if both the maker and seconder of the main motion like an amendment, they may just accept it into the main motion without a separate vote or further discussion. Friendly amendments should not be used as a means of cutting off debate when one or more Council members strongly oppose an amendment. When in doubt, or if the proposed amendment is highly controversial, the Chair should not allow an amendment to be accepted as "friendly," but should allow the members a chance to vote it up or down.
2. If in discussion of an amendment or a motion, it becomes clear that everyone, including the maker and the seconder of the amendment or motion, change their minds an no longer think their amendment or motion makes much sense or believe that a different amendment or motion would be better, they may withdraw the original amendment or motion. Then any member except the chair may be recognized and make a different amendment or motion. A huge amount of time can be saved by having the maker and seconder of an amendment or motion recognize that someone else has a better idea, agreeing to withdraw their amendment or motion and moving the alternative that has been suggested and seems to have general member support.
3. A main motion may be amended as many times as the Council likes but once an amendment is made and seconded, that amendment must be discussed and either passed, rejected, or dropped by the maker and second before moving on to additional amendments.
4. After the Council is done amending a motion, the Council shall return to the main motion for any brief final comments and then act on the main motion. As a courtesy, a main motion may be "divided" into parts if people want to indicate their rejection of parts of the motion. But the Chair must be sure that "dividing the question" does not result in an absurdity, for example, allowing individual members to vote in support of the spending half of a motion without also voting for the part of the action that pays for the spending (e.g.. a member votes that they support bringing a speaker to a function. but vote against appropriating the funds for the speaker).
5. After everyone who wants to speak to an amendment or motion has had their turn, any member who has been recognized may "call the question" which is a request for a vote on the amendment or motion on the floor. Unlike the formal Robert's Rules of Order, the Chair should either call the question or explain that he or she will allow a few more comments. As suggested above, the Council should respect the Chair in this matter. People should avoid calling the question simply in order to silence opposition, and members should seek to avoid being redundant in their comments. As in all procedures, the Council has the right to overturn the Chair on the matter of calling the question, either insisting on more discussion or cutting debate off, but this should be used sparingly. A motion to overturn the Chair on any matter should either be taken without discussion or after only a brief comment from the Chair and the maker of the motion to overturn as to their reasons. Long debates about overturning rulings of the Chair are not productive and should be avoided at all costs. A Chair whose rulings are regularly overturned should seriously consider stepping down.
6. As with amendments, main motions may only be discussed one at a time. If members think they have a better motion than the one on the floor, they may say so, argue to defeat the motion on the floor and then if they succeed, offer their alternative. But action on the motion on the floor must be completed before moving on to another motion. (Unlike Robert's Rules of Order, "substitute motions" should not be accepted until the motion on the floor is defeated.
7. An amendment, a motion, or even a whole discussion item may be "tabled." To table a motion is to cut off debate. Reasons for doing this might include, becoming aware that there is insufficient information for action, that no position seems capable of getting a majority of support, or that the discussion is just bogging down and appears not capable of being rescued at the current meeting. An item may be tabled to a specific time(in which case the time to which is being tabled is debatable, e.g. an argument that a different date would serve the Council better) or an item may be tabled indefinitely. The latter is not debatable. As soon as it is made and seconded it must be voted up or down. An item that is tabled maybe re-agendized for a later meeting, but may not be brought up again during the meeting at which it is tabled. Tabling motions should be used sparingly. Confusing and unproductive discussion may be tabled. Bad ideas should generally not be tabled but voted down after a reasonable period of debate.
7. In discussion of an item, a motion, or an amendment there is a hierarchy or priority for recognition of speakers by the Chair. Generally, attempts to be fair, inclusive, and efficient are guiding principles. The Chair may decide on which order to call upon speakers. The following may be helpful hints:
1. Call first on people who have not spoken yet or spoken as much as others(rather than simply
   who shot their hand in the air first).
2. Generally, the Chair calls upon her or himself last.
3. The highest priority for recognition is called "a point of personal privilege." If a member has been personally insulted or attacked, they should have an immediate opportunity to respond. This should be used very sparingly, and never abused as a cover to make some substantive point, since a person that abuses this right may lose it. If members of the Council are regularly insulting each other, the Chair should try and resolve the issue either immediately or outside of the meeting.
4. The next highest priority for recognition is a process comment or "point of order." Again, this should never be used to slip in a substantive argument, but to clarify a confusing process. For example, if someone starts to make a second amendment to a motion when a prior one is still on the floor, a process comment would be to interrupt the substantive discussion to point the problem out to the Chair. Or an observation that the meeting is running way over time and a solution needs to be found before continuing with substantive discussion of issues would take priority over someone wanting to make another point in the debate.
5. Generally, it's a good idea to start discussion of an item by asking if there are questions before entering into debates, making motions, etc. So a Chair might begin an item by asking if there are any questions and then taking comments and accepting motions. Again, members should refrain from using the question period to slip in substantive comments. Do note, however, that sometimes starting a discussion with a suggested motion clarifies things even better than questions. Members of the Council making motions early in a discussion have a real responsibility to not lead the Council down unproductive paths by making motions that have no hope of passing.

Finally, please remember that no formal rules can substitute for Council members? coming prepared to meetings, having a clear agenda with sufficient information for good decision making, and having members who make their best effort to be cooperative with the Chair and each other, listen to each others' points, be willing to be flexible about positions, attempt to make decisions efficiently, even when they disagree with the outcome. Good participation and full input from members is very important in good decision making, but getting through agendas, getting real things accomplished, making difficult decisions and then moving on is equally important. Democracy suffers when groups are overly closed or dictatorial, but it also suffers when people get the perception that the collective group process is so inefficient that it just doesn't get things done. The UC-AFT and its Chairs should strive for a balance that respects full input from all participants, but also moves to action in a reasonably efficient manner.