Quote:
Originally Posted by Gusteau
If you're meetings are crazy long (and boy have I been there) a good practice is to limit discussion to two pros and two cons about each person running. If people have less to say that's fine, but having more than that is where you run into your 5+ hour meetings.
And for your politicians in the making, ensure they understand that a pro is, "Joe is qualified for treasurer because he has interned with an accounting firm for the past two years" not, "Joe is qualified because...[ten minute speech]"
|
Right now, we have a nomination speech, (short) and then a max 5 minute speech by the candidate. Motions for extension of time are recognized by the chair and strict Robert's Rules are enforced. When the candidates leave, we have discussion, limited to a certain amount of time. Members are allowed equal time to speak on behalf of each candidate and are recognized by order of initiation (lowest badge first). Motions to extend time are recognized by the chair as are motions to close discussion (for each candidate).
You stick to strict Parliamentary Procedure and with 5-6 offices to fill, you're out of there in under 2 hours. Typically, the President will pass off the gavel to an alumnus to run the election meeting and to assist in counting the ballots. For the last few years, that's been the chapter adviser. This is so the outgoing President doesn't have to be impartial in discussions as this is somewhere his impartiality is invaluable.
That system is subject to change though as our brothers see fit. Our HQ doesn't impose any sort of system on us.
Threaded Mode
