I entered the back rooms of politics in 1986. This was my reward for helping with the previous election. A few inside people thought this young man was someone worthy to bring to the inside. I believed I was going to become a person of influence.
I had some exposure of Robert’s Rules of Order. So I kind of understood what was happening in these political meetings. But sometimes things were a little fuzzy.
I had political ambitions in those days. But my public speaking was “wooden.” To improve my political future, I joined Toastmasters (TM) in 1988. Coupled with TM’s public speaking training is training for Robert’s Rules of Order. Being in politics, I could see the relevance of this skill. So I took some additional TM training and read some books. With maybe 20 hours of study, I was able to see the purpose for all these seemingly rigid rules. The rules were a great balance to provide fairness, discussion, and a decision. The rules did not seem so rigid to me anymore.
When I returned to the political backrooms with this training, I was more influential in shaping the direction of my constituency association.
After politics and after Toastmasters, I served on a few community boards. Ostensibly, these boards were governed by Robert’s Rules of Order. But practically, Robert’s was seriously watered down. We could dispense with most of the rules and still make decisions — without people getting mad at each other.
And Robert’s Rules do allow for “suspension of the rules.” The meeting can bring back the rules when someone gets unreasonable.
But it seems if the people are reasonable, the rules are not that necessary. But I often wonder how much of our exposure to the rules — even if we are not that good with the rules — helps us make collective decisions today.
Are young people getting this culture today? If not, how do they come to group decisions? I don’t know.
Meeting rules in the TDG
While my improved knowledge of Robert’s Rules helped me gain influence in my political party, I also saw other people being disenfranchised by the rules. They were somewhat lost in the meetings (like I was before my training) and relegated to being mostly spectators in the discussion.
While the rules serve an important purpose, the rules are somewhat complex for many people. They could have taken the same training as I did. But their more likely choice is not to participate, which means their voice is not heard. For this reason, I have been reluctant to introduce any set of rules for meetings in the TDG.
As well, TDG meetings will be a much different culture than today’s political meetings. In political meetings, some people have a natural inclination to dominate the discussion and implement their solution. Robert’s Rules allows other people to offer their perspectives and challenge the perspectives of the “leaders.”
In contrast, TDG representatives are looking to find a solution. So all viewpoints will be listened to, and somehow a better decision is found than any one individual could have found by him- or herself. In other words, differing input will be welcomed. In this new culture, it is feasible that the TDG can function well without so many rules.
So I suggest the early TDG builders start their first meetings without any formal rules for meetings. If the builders apply fairness, respect, and practicality in their deliberations, they won’t need rules — just like my community board meetings.
In other words, let the TDG start with no rules for meetings. If there is a need for a few rules, the early TDG builders will figure them out. As the TDG gets bigger, more rules could be necessary. I suspect whatever meeting rules come into the TDG will be much fewer than what we have now.
The TDG elections
I need to digress a bit. While I suggest that the early TDG builders should dispense with formal rules for meetings, I should make it clear that the TDG elections should have clear rules. These rules will be part of the local TDG’s constitution or set by the TDG’s executive committee. These electoral rules should be written such that most people will come to the same understanding of how the votes are delivered, cast, and counted. These rules will also spell the authority and responsibility of the executive committee. So when the TDG election has found the TDG decision makers, there should be no dispute between rational readers of the election rules.
Back to the TDG meeting rules
Start with no rules. Add rules if only needed.
We can get some ideas from known systems. Take, for example, the “agenda” in Robert’s Rules. This topic occupies a few pages of the Robert’s manual. But these rules have been in play for decades, so many of us know how to work with the agenda without ever reading these rules.
My experience is that the agenda is initially written and introduced by the chair, secretary, or executive director. It is assumed the agenda is not complete. At the start of the meeting, members, can add new items to the agenda, remove items, or reprioritize items. It usually takes only a few minutes to finalize the agenda. It is a routine for many meetings.
When the agenda is approved, the chair has the map to guide the meeting item-by-item. Many community-minded people have been cultured into using the agenda; even those who do not understand Robert’s Rules very well are comfortable with the few minutes to set up the agenda.
Many TDG meetings will start with an agenda. That skill need not be re-invented or deliberately taught or officially formalized. In essence, it is cultured, not enforced. Nothing wrong with that.
Robert’s Rules has several other valuable rules that could be useful in the TDG. For example, “Refer to committee” and “postpone to the future” could prove valuable in TDG deliberations. But common sense and a practical spirit might be all that is needed to effect these intermediate decisions.
Sociocracy
Another source for TDG rules could be sociocracy. Sociocracy is an organic way for workers to make decisions around their sphere of the workplace. The key of sociocratic “circles” is to gain consent from all members of the decision-making group. Trying to get that consent requires a more thoughtful process than a majority vote. Supposedly, decisions are better implemented when sociocracy finds that consent.
While Robert’s has president, secretary, and treasurer as its main positions, sociocracy has leader, secretary, delegate, and facilitator. While Sociocracy for All (SOFA) has training for all four positions, I believe the training for facilitator would be useful in so many places where sociocracy is not fully employed. I should take this training.
I recommend early TDG builders study sociocracy to make their TDG better. The TDG may even take on some of the sociocratic rules and concepts to conduct its meetings.
Implementing a “few rules” culture
As alluded earlier, Robert’s Rules provides a forum to manage unreasonable people in a meeting. But with the TDG electing more reasonable people, such rules may not be necessary.
The early TDG will not be dealing with such high stakes. So the early TDG builders can experiment with no or few rules to find that new way with open discussion and intense listening. As the consultative culture becomes more established, these early TDG groups will be more able to handle bigger challenges with fewer rules.
Guidance for future TDG rules for meetings
I will let the future TDG builders design their rules for meetings — if such rules will be helpful. If so, here are some guidelines to build those rules.
1. Understand that we have been taught to acquire power, so we can inflict our agenda onto others.
2. Understand that we have also been taught to participate more democratically. But this often involves skillful manipulation of the rules — to inflict our agenda onto others.
3. Understand that we have come to different opinions because we have acquired different knowledge, experience, and wisdom.
4. Consultation is about bringing all that knowledge, experience, and wisdom into one voice. So it is important that we “seek first to understand, then be understood.”
5. Allow sufficient time for discussion.
6. When practical, allow sufficient time for reflection
7. Try to find a consensual decision.
8. If not consensus, try to find consent from the minority.
9. If not consent, have a formal vote. The decision belongs to the majority.
10. All participants should strive for that decision. If the minority will not strive, then it should get out of the way and let the majority implement the decision.
11. If the decision is wrong, the majority and minority will find out later. Then they will make changes.
12. Even with the best consultation skills and the best minds, we are only making our best collective guess. Neither the majority nor the minority is always right in knowing how a decision will turn out.
13. Every failed TDG decision is actually an opportunity to learn.
Future TDG rules for legislatures
Some of my TDG writing is about streamlining legislative processes. Our current legislatures are designed for the 19th century and were built to force power-inclined decision makers into behaving more democratically. Many, many rules.
The consultation skills learned while building the TDG will be the culture of a future TDG legislature. These legislatures will be more able to deliberate more issues more thoroughly than legislatures of today. In other words, we will have proper discussion in legislatures about the issues, not legal games played by political parties trying to get advantage over other political parties.
As well, our legislatures will be more able to amend or rescind legislation that is no longer effective.
And the TDG elections will not send too many disruptive representatives into these legislatures.
I believe TDG legislatures will have some rules. But they will be much fewer than the legislative rules of today.
Conclusion
The TDG gives us a great opportunity to redesign our rules around societal deliberation.
A decade after the TDG is fully implemented, we could discover than we need fewer rules for society to function well.
Published on Medium 2025
Let's Clean Up this Political Mess
What is Your Political Legacy?
