PREFACE TO THE 2014 FIRST EDITION

Democracy In Decline

Our society is losing the art of participatory democracy. Condo associations, volunteer clubs, non-profit societies, corporate boards, unions, NGOs, co-ops, service clubs, charities; all of these are suffering with the same general malaise. We, as citizens, have forgotten how to do democracy. 

In our busy lives no one has time to read the 700+ pages of Robert’s Rules of Order so they can attend their condo AGM. Most people haven’t even heard of Robert’s Rules, yet it’s the dominant rules system. Alienated and disenfranchised, few of us invest the time to cultivate the skills of participatory democracy. The schools don’t teach it. Academia studies it in the esoteric past without teaching the practical skills essential for the living present. Entire generations have never been exposed to it. Flame wars on a Facebook post seem to be our primary lingering legacy from Pericles and Voltaire.

Everywhere the Enlightenment principles of citizen democracy atrophy as we, as a polity, forget the fundamental principles of self-government that two-and-a-half millennia of our ancestors fought and died to cultivate. We have created the perfect incubator for a return to tyranny.

Recent experiments in “consensus” models, while laudable, have suffered from the fatal naiveté of idealism divorced from pragmatic experience. By abandoning the core principle of Majority Rule their attempted fix is too radical, creating a system that can not survive a collision with everyday political reality. 

Both Robert’s Rules of Order and the Consensus models have gone too far to their respective extremes. At 700+ pages, Robert’s Rules is far too formal, rigid and complex to be practical for everyday use. As a rule system it is beyond reproach for completeness, but this strength is also its fatal weakness. 

Robert’s Rules has anticipated almost every edge case, including just the exact words that everyone is supposed to speak at just exactly the particular time. The only problem is that absolutely NO ONE reads it. It’s just too big and too daunting. Those who dive into the tome rarely understand it. No one but a professional parliamentarian can be expected to master it. Such a system, while suited for professional politicians, is simply not appropriate for 99.99% of everyday democratic organizations. Using Robert’s Rules of Order for volunteer clubs makes as much sense as hiring an accountant for a lemonade stand. 

The unsuitability of Robert’s Rules of Order for everyday use has left a vacuum, alienating several generations from the workings of citizen democracy. Into that vacuum spawned the experimentations of the Consensus and Modified Consensus models of decision-making. In all but a few specialized circumstances those experiments have failed.

The main “innovation” of Consensus is the elimination of the principle of Majority Rule. This makes consensus fragile, immediately breaking when faced with entrenched disagreement. Systemically unable to cope, conflict gets papered over with groupthink and coercion as every entrenched minority is given the power to blackmail the majority with organizational gridlock. 

The hard fact is that the real world is brimming over with conflict. A democratic system that is going to work in that world must be built around that fact. For any real-world organization to function, decisions must be decisive and efficient without pampering everyone’s fragile feelings. 

Democracy is not group therapy, it is a group decision-making tool. There is no time in the real world for the constant navel-gazing and hand-holding of Consensus. You will win some votes and lose others, deal with it. In the meantime the business of the organization must go on. 

The failure of both Robert’s Rules of Order and the Consensus models in the everyday world leaves the void of participatory democracy yet unfilled. It’s time to head back to the drawing board. 

Rebooting The System

The Democracy 2.0 rule system (hereafter abbreviated D2.0) is designed to fill that void, as a democratic group decision making system for everyday use by everyday people facing everyday realities. It is pragmatic and simple, keeping what works and throwing out the rest. 

Democracy 2.0 is the accessible, user-friendly, Keep-It-Simple-Stupid rules of order system that anyone can navigate with about as much investment as learning to operate the latest app on your smartphone. Everyone has learned harder things for less important reasons. 

D2.0 will not grind to gridlock the moment someone asserts their individual rights or refuses to bow to groupthink. Nor is it so formal and convoluted that it requires a degree in law or political science to navigate. It preserves the essential lessons learned from 2500 years of democratic trial and error, making it robust enough to channel strident disagreement into productive discourse while ensuring the process is simple, efficient and decisive. 

In short, the operating system of everyday democracy needs an upgrade for today’s realities. The Democracy 2.0 rules of order system is that upgrade, but it is more. It is an attempt to restore our cultural birthright: the lost art of participatory democracy.

PREFACE TO THE 2025 SECOND EDITION

“If we do not believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we do not believe in it at all.”

— Noam Chomsky

Decorum And Modern Democracy

I wrote the original preface of Democracy 2.0 in the summer of 2014, echoing Carl Sagan in his prescient book The Demon-Haunted World, but sharpening my focus on the growing drift towards dictatorship. 

A decade later the warning bells are deafening, as far-right demagogues ride a world-wide populist wave. More than ever, democracy needs a populist reboot of its own. The second edition of Democracy 2.0 seeks to learn the lessons of the last decade and apply the solutions needed for our brave new 21st century world of “post-truth” toxicity. 

Spiraling Polarization

As I reflect on this decade of developments, the one that seems at the root of our current troubles is the extreme polarization of political discourse.

Toxicity and extreme vitriol have infected our politics in a manner not seen since the 1930s. The two poles are inter-causally entwined, each feeding off the other to justify their own existence. Both show signs of totalitarian intolerance, isolated in incubator silos of ideological purity and locked in a mutually reinforcing spiral of escalation. That spiral now threatens to undermine democracy itself and will lead to increasing political violence if unchecked. We must lower the temperature if democracy is to survive. 

Carl von Clausewitz, the great 19th century Prussian military philosopher famously pointed out that all warfare is merely politics by other means. He is credited with situating military violence at the extreme end of an intrinsically political continuum. After the Charlie Kirk assassination, the words of von Clausewitz should alert us to what awaits those who continue to engage in unfettered polarization. 

Toxic Rudeness

How did we get here? The answer is undoubtedly complicated, but I believe the most important root cause comes from the spread of toxically anti-social online culture. 

Angela Nagle, in her 2017 book Kill All Normies, documents the connection between the current state of our discourse and the corrosive impact of internet toxicity, infecting our regular politics through the vector of social media. 

There is a simple way to test the disparity between online and in-person standards of decorum. Scan a random sampling of uncurated online forums and the following conclusion is unavoidable: people are unspeakably obnoxious online. They say hopelessly disrespectful things about other people over the most trivial topics, using language they would never dream of saying to someone face-to-face. John Suler, in his seminal 2004 paper, described this as the Online Disinhibition Effect. 

The Hellscape Vector

In 2018—four years before becoming the “Chief Twit”—Elon Musk told 60 Minutes: 

“Twitter’s a war zone. If somebody’s gonna jump in the war zone, it’s, like, ‘Okay, you’re in the arena. Let’s go!’”

Twitter began as a tame micro-blogging news platform. How did it end up becoming a “war zone” that some users were describing as a “hellscape” even before Musk’s hostile takeover? The answer appears to be the spread of anti-social standards of internet troll culture from anonymous bulletin boards like 4chan. (Nagle, Kill All Normies)

Like the disease vector of a virulent pathogen, this cultural dumpster-fire has spread through social media—deliberately fanned by well-funded troll farms in authoritarian regimes—corroding our most fundamental democratic institutions with toxic online norms of communication. An entire generation of voters has come of age with the normative values of 4chan shaping their perception of what acceptable democratic debate looks like. Many now believe that “free speech” means “freedom to troll.”

These toxic norms require push-back on a societal scale. Like the metaphorical frog in an incrementally boiling pot, democracy writ large is slowly boiling to death in toxic rudeness. Also like the frog, many do not realize the mortal danger we are in. Democratic discourse simply cannot function if the participants are busy insulting each other.

Having identified the role of toxic online norms in eroding respectful decorum, the first step is obvious: the frog must hop out of the pot. 

Decorum As Foundational Axiom

To counter this creeping toxicity we must more clearly codify the norms of respectful discourse, along with the underlying reasons that those rules exist in the first place. 

Contrary to the puerile assertions of Elon Musk and the “free-speech absolutists,” rules of democratic debate from Cleisthenes to Westminster have always required that participants behave with respectful decorum. We must double-down on those requirements or risk destroying the social contract at the heart of democracy. For this reason I have fundamentally restructured the General Principles in the second edition of Democracy 2.0. 

The first edition had placed Polite Decorum halfway down the list of Ancillary Principles. This was in line with the relative attention of other rules systems such as Robert’s and Bourinot’s Rules of Order. Such ranking suited a world that took more traditional norms of politeness for granted. Sadly we no longer live in that world, and our democratic rules must adapt to survive. 

For the second edition I have made “Respectful Decorum” the Foundational Axiom, an entirely new section above the Core Principles. It is my hope this will reinforce to all who use Democracy 2.0 that respectful behaviour during the democratic process is not merely a wishful goal, optional luxury or suggested guideline, but an existential prerequisite.

Conclusion: Decorum & Tolerance

A renewed emphasis on the necessity of respectful decorum within democratic debate may not be sufficient to reverse the erosion of democracy by itself, but without it the task is hopeless.

The various factions within a democracy must find common ground. These are our neighbours, and our fate is bound together for good or ill. The Democratic Contract itself is unworkable without a basic level of respect afforded to each participant within debate. Only a Gandhian super-human will suffer through personal insults without responding in kind. 

When stakes are high and debate gets heated it is often the rules of respectful decorum that prevent conflict from spiraling out of control. There is a very practical, very wise reason why the British Parliament historically placed the government and opposition benches precisely two sword-lengths apart: the moment that discourse devolves into open insults is the moment we begin to reach for the “other means” of Carl von Clausewitz.

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION

S1.1 – What are Rules of Order?

Democracy is a verb. 

At the most basic level, democracy is the act of group decision-making. Rules of order–also called parliamentary procedure–are the formally agreed upon system of procedures that give structure to that group decision-making process. Their purpose is to facilitate the orderly conduct of business that safeguards fundamental democratic rights in a fair and transparent manner.

We can imagine rules of order as being like the operating system of a computer. Every computer could, in principle, run a variety of operating systems, but in practice the choice should be guided by the intended function of the machine: a business computer might opt to run Windows, a network server might run UNIX, while personal users may prefer running Mac.

Similarly, every democratic organization must pick from a variety of rule systems depending on the needs of their membership.

S1.2 – Why do we need Rules of Order?

Group decision-making is notoriously difficult and fraught with conflict. Rules of order should clearly set out what rights a member has and how they should go about exercising those rights, creating a fair and level playing field for all members to present their ideas. They must be broad enough to apply to unforeseen situations, but specific enough to admit only one reasonable and legally binding interpretation.

Rules of order exist to protect and balance the rights of three distinct groups of members whose interests are often in conflict:

1. 1. Individual Members: these have the most rights, including the right to vote, move and second motions, speak to motions, stand for office, freely participate in proceedings without obstruction and receive complete and timely information.
   2. The Minority: All of the rights associated with free and fair debate are in place to protect the rights of those who happen to hold the current minority position, in accordance with the Democratic Contract, recognizing that the balance between the majority and minority is always in flux and could change at any time. Anything that suppresses dissent violates the fundamental democratic rights of the minority.
   3. The Majority: All of the mechanisms and procedures that are in place to ensure order and the smooth, efficient and decisive resolution of business protect the rights of the current majority. Anything that contributes to gridlock violates the rights of the majority and the fundamental democratic principle of Majority Rule.

Many people malign rules of order because they get in the way of doing what they want, but one should never forget, a violation of the rules of order is always a violation of democratic rights for one of the groups above. Eroding rules of order is a necessary first step down the path to dictatorship.

Sadly, through neglect or oversight many organizations have no formally approved rules system, leading to confusion, misunderstanding, conflict and the exercise of arbitrary authority. Such groups often struggle with a deeply frustrating process that devolves into mob dysfunction or dictatorship by the presiding officer. In such a situation the rights of all three groups frequently suffer, sometimes catastrophically.

For democratic group decision-making to work effectively there must be order; if democracy is the act of group decision making then democracy is meaningless if no decision is made. The rights of the members must be balanced against other factors such as the speed and efficacy of the process. When mob gridlock arises it is tempting to turn to dictatorship to sweep away the obstacles, yet we know that tyranny breeds all manner of abuse. We know where that path leads, and it is nowhere that wise or educated participants want to go.

Democratic rules of order try to build a procedural system that can chart a middle course between the extremes of anarchy and tyranny.

S1.3 – Which Rules of Order?

A properly structured democratic organization should immediately adopt a specific rule system—known as the parliamentary authority—to govern their internal decision-making. Typically adding a clause to the bylaws is sufficient, though other ways are possible. 

There are a range of rule systems to choose from, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Some of the better-known ones are Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, Bourinot’s Rules of Order, The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, Demeter’s Manual and the whole loosely connected spectrum of “consensus” and “modified consensus” models of decision-making. 

The choice of rule systems can dramatically improve or hinder the smooth functioning of a democratic organization in the same way that the optimized choice of operating system can affect how useful a computer is.

Government organizations of various levels may want to stick with more formal rules of order such as Robert’s or Bourinot’s due to their particular legal framework or statutory requirements. But a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) such as a homeowner association, non-profit society, charity or service club should choose their rules of order system carefully based on their own unique circumstances and requirements; more formal systems will often do more harm than good among grassroots organizations where members are not legal professionals. 

This is where Democracy 2.0 shines. Designed specifically for NGOs, the D2.0 system is intended to be the simplest possible parliamentary authority compatible with smooth and efficient democratic decision-making. It is designed for lay people who find the excessive formality of systems such as Robert’s Rules a needless waste of scarce energy better spent on doing the business of the organization rather than quibbling over esoteric procedural niceties. 

This book is your referee and neutral arbiter. It is a complete reference manual designed to quickly and easily settle disputes about procedure. To make the Democracy 2.0 rules of order system binding on your organization simply amend your Bylaws to add the following clause:

“All meetings of the [organization name] shall be conducted according to the latest version of the Democracy 2.0 Rules of Order manuals, except in specific cases where discrete portions of the Rules of Order are inconsistent with and thereby superseded by these Bylaws or other higher legal authorities.”

S1.4 – The Birth of Democratic Decision-Making

Unity is the whole purpose of democracy. Since Solon of Athens created the first democratic constitution two-and-a-half millennia ago it has been understood that a divided group, city or nation is weak and vulnerable to attack. Democracy is the method of group decision making designed to give all stakeholders a legitimate voice and legal role, thereby creating unity around mutual support for the process. 

However unity must be voluntary to be effective and stable. Political unity can be imposed through intimidation and force, but such “unity” is oppressive, unstable and sows the seeds of its own destruction; sooner or later the oppressed will revolt.

During a revolt the dictatorship of tyranny is traded for the chaos of mob anarchy. The collapse of order during a revolution can only be sustained for a short period or the entire system will collapse; a new order must quickly be put in place. 

The solution to mob chaos through most of human history has been to install a new dictatorship more favorable to those leading the revolution, setting into motion the next cycle of oppression. The revolution replaces one tyranny for another. 

In this way the ancient world was almost universally governed by dictatorship, punctuated with periods of mob revolt in a destructive cycle. To break this cycle another method of governance had to be found.

The ancient Athenians, starting with Solon, were extraordinary in their attempts to break the cycle by pioneering a middle path of group decision-making they called demo-cracy, or “people’s government.” The centerpiece to this system was the explicit bargain or social contract between the various factions within the state to abide by a collaborative system of government based on the principle of majority rule. 

The early Athenian experiments with democratic decision-making were only partially successful, but the trial-and-error accumulation of practical wisdom through the constitutional reforms of Solon and Cleisthenes began a 2500-year journey of development that culminated in the Enlightenment and our mature western democracies.

S1.5 – The Social Contract

At the heart of democracy is the Social Contract, the fundamental bargain by all parties to adopt a fair procedure of group decision-making that enshrines freedom of speech, thought and association in a free-flow of ideas. All members (be they citizens, owners, members, etc.) are given a fair chance to present their ideas, and then the group as a whole decides among the various options by choosing the most popular. This process creates the consent necessary to unify the minority and majority around a fair process.

Once the group has chosen by formal vote then all members of the group agree to support the most popular choice, especially those members of the group who supported a different choice. In exchange for the rights to freely speak and present their views the minority agrees to abide by and support the majority until such time as they can persuade enough of their peers to change their mind, thereby shifting the will of the majority to their own position.

This “Social Contract” (or “Social Compact”) entails the practical insight that group unity is preferable to discord and civil strife, even if that means supporting a more popular decision you may disagree with. 

It is often tempting for the majority faction to suppress or restrict weaker rival factions that currently find themselves in the minority. This is known in political theory as “tyranny of the majority.” If the governing regime of the day goes down this road it commits a fundamental breach of the Social Contract. The minority whose rights are being violated are then well within their rights to withdraw support and revolt against the majority, since the majority has breached the fundamental democratic bargain. The result entails a descent into open and unconstrained conflict, returning to the pre-democratic cycle between tyranny, revolt, anarchy and tyranny again. Every conscientious citizen should keep John Locke‘s Right to Revolution firmly in mind as a backstop against the anti-democratic tyranny of those who would seek to break the Social Contract.

To accentuate the centrality of the Social Contract at the heart of democracy the D2.0 system has placed it as the First Principle and named it the Democratic Contract. It is absolutely critical for all participants within a democratic decision-making body to understand this concept. Even within the microcosm of a condo association or non-profit the same fundamental democratic principles are at work. A basic understanding of them is necessary if we are to navigate the middle ground between tyranny and mob anarchy. These are your neighbours, colleagues and friends, after all. The majority must respect the rights of the minority, and the minority must support the decision of the majority. These two principles are the opposite side of the same coin, and the name of that coin is Democracy. They come as a package deal, they cannot be separated, and they are not optional. Failure to uphold either end of the bargain is a rejection of Democracy itself.

SECTION 2 – GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Unlike other parliamentary systems, Democracy 2.0 does not attempt to account for all possible circumstances with hundreds of pages of specific rules. Instead it establishes general principles to guide the decision-making of the members, who are the sovereign decision-makers over the organization and retain full responsibility for their application, implementation and enforcement. 

The first and overriding rule is the Foundational Axiom requiring Respectful Decorum at all times during formal discussion. This rule overrides all others: no other Principle or specific rule may ever override the Foundational Axiom, because democracy simply can not function in an atmosphere of toxic rudeness.

The rules contained in the Foundational Axiom are tools accumulated through millennia of pragmatic experience, holding strong during world wars and national catastrophes because they work. They are designed to ensure respectful debate is maintained, even in the face of strident or emotional dissent when literal lives are on the line. 

The remaining General Principles are divided into two classes: Core Principles and Ancillary Principles. The Core Principles are universally applicable at all times in all situations. The remaining Ancillary Principles are of a more specific or limited nature, applying to some particular situations and not others. 

When a specific rule conflicts with a Core Principle or Ancillary Principle the specific rule takes force and overrides the latter. With the exception of the Foundational Axiom, the General Principles govern decisions in the absence of a specific rule.

When a circumstance creates conflict between two or more General Principles it falls to the Chair and ultimately the assembly itself (via a motion to Appeal) to resolve the conflict, with higher ranked principles ordinarily holding more weight.

The group as a whole, and not the Chair, always retains complete responsibility for the manner with which it conducts business, as they are the sovereign decision-makers by way of a motion to Appeal. Thus such a group using this system is charged with the task of exercising reason and common sense to accommodate novel circumstances and resolve each conflict in the moment, according to the principles and rules in this manual. 

 

FOUNDATIONAL AXIOM

2.1. Respectful Decorum

All formal democratic discourse must be conducted with respect and decorum. Such rules are not censorship, they are time, place, and manner choices to sustain the purpose of group decision making. Democracy needs rules against table-flipping. 

The empirical evidence amassed by social psychology shows that incivility in democratic discourse is generally a product of normative expectations. It emerges largely from context—the group norms, roles and expectations that shape behaviour—rather than from immutable personality traits of individuals.

The take-away message is, to paraphrase Stanford University social psychology professor Philip Zimbardo, bad behaviour is generally not caused by “a few bad apples” but by a “bad barrel.” 

Taking these results seriously requires that we lean into rules governing expectations and norms of behaviour within the context of democratic debate. 

Human psychology is remarkably stable and predictable. Certain behaviours invariably trigger escalation and those behaviours remain the same today as they were during the times of Pericles and Cicero. The ancient founders of democracy were wise to identify and incorporate prohibitions against such behaviours and each successive generation is equally wise to preserve these rules, or relearn their necessity through suffering the consequences of their removal. 

For democracy to function, the participants must treat each other with respect. Participants need not agree—indeed the function of debate is to provide a formal mechanism for dis-agreement—but such disagreement must be bounded within certain parameters of polite and respectful behaviour. Without these rules the entire democratic enterprise may collapse into infighting and civil war, be it metaphorical “war” or the actual kinetic variety.

2.2. Permitted Subjects of Debate

Ideas and behaviour are the proper targets of debate; the character, motives, or other personal attributes of participants are not. 

A common error is to conflate the “free speech” right to criticize ideas with the right to attack a person; the former is real, the latter is not. Within democratic debate it is permitted to attack ideas or behaviour, but never the character or motives of a person. 

2.2.1 Permitted Topics Within Formal Debate

1. 1. Facts.
   2. Evidence.
   3. Behaviours.
   4. Ideas, including but not limited to political, philosophical, scientific or religious ideas, beliefs or ideologies.

2.2.2 Prohibited Topics Within Formal Debate

1. 1. Character: At no time may the character of a participant be attacked.
   2. Motivations: Individuals may only discuss their own motivations, they may never allege the motivations of others; such claims are almost always veiled insults or attacks on character. 
   3. An Individual’s Immutable Physical or Demographic Attributes: This includes but is not limited to physical attributes, traits, phenotypes, characteristics, handicaps, ancestry or geographic origin. Of particular note: religion is not on this list. It is not an immutable demographic trait, as evidenced by the fact that people change their religion all the time. Placing religion in the same category as “race” or “sex” is an overt category error in logic. Religion is not inherited, it is an ideology or system of ideas that one chooses. It is a mutable, highly political system of ideas that is entirely within bounds of democratic debate. 

2.3 Prohibited Behaviour

Passionate, strident or confrontational speech, so long as it falls within the parameters of Section 2.2, must always be permitted during formal democratic debate unless it strays into the following prohibited behaviour. 

2.3.1 Foul Language & Insults

Foul Language, insults, cursing, name-calling, threats, violence, rude gestures or other obvious impolite behaviour are forbidden with zero tolerance. They should automatically and without exception or debate trigger ejection from the meeting under Section 2.4.1. Ejected members forfeit all membership rights for the remainder of that meeting and are barred from further attendance or participation at that meeting. 

2.3.2 Cross-Debate

In formal debate all comments must be addressed to the chair or presiding officer of the meeting. That means facing and making direct eye contact with the Chair while addressing them verbally in their formal, third-person role as “the Chair.” 

“Cross-debate” is defined as addressing comments directly to or at another member, with or without direct eye contact. This conduct is prohibited in formal debate and includes the prohibition against calling another member by their personal name rather than their title or their role in the organization. 

When referencing another member it must be phrased in the third-person and a formal title must be used, such as their position, office, unit number or other impersonal title (e.g., the President, the Recording Secretary, Unit 204, The Delegate from District 12, the Junior Senator from New York etc.) 

If no other option exists, then referring to the member using their surname and title is acceptable (e.g., Mr. Smith, Mrs. Jones, Doctor Livingstone). The purpose of this rule is to make clear that the topic of discussion relates to their formal role within the organization, while maintaining an impersonal tone. 

Cross-debate is forbidden in formal settings as a powerful tool to prevent heated debate from escalating out of control. To the uninitiated this may seem like a silly, stuffy rule, but in fact it is deeply pragmatic, the product of millennia of trial-and-error. The fact that the Westminster system places government and opposition benches precisely “two sword-lengths” apart is a preserved relic that hints at the historic trials and errors that shaped the rule. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. 

Anyone who has been in court or other highly charged formal proceeding will understand that these rules help keep emotions in check when stakes are high. Nothing is more escalatory to the mammalian brain than staring someone straight in the eye while engaging in direct criticism from across the room. Such primal triggers must be avoided in formal debate.

At the discretion of the chair this rule can be relaxed according to P5. Simplicity and during committee meetings, including Committee of the Whole. If discussions get heated, however, the Chair can choose to reapply these more formal rules at their discretion. Alternatively, if a member feels uncomfortable by the temperature of the debate they can compel the application of the more formal rules by raising a Point of Order. 

2.4 Penalties

Democratic institutions must allow dissent while preventing escalation. Passionate or confrontational speech is not a breach of decorum unless it crosses lines laid out above. Rules of order must condemn and prohibit personal attacks while protecting the right to criticise ideas, policies and systems. 

For this reason it is vital that the application of penalties be applied evenly and fairly. The danger is that penalties against decorum violations become a tool of oppression used by those holding the levers of authority against those who would dissent or criticise them. To prevent this requires that penalties for serious breaches remove all discretion from the process, which in turn requires a rigid and explicit procedure applied equally to all. 

2.4.1 Serious Breaches

Clear and unambiguous violations of Section 2.3.1 are serious breaches of decorum and should prompt the Chair to immediately eject the offending party from the meeting without debate, delay or exception, regardless of the rank or position of the violator. If the Chair fails to eject the offending member then any other member has a right to raise a Point of Order (S5.3.1) demanding that the offending party be expelled from the meeting. The Chair should not resume the meeting until the offending party has been removed and order is restored. 

In 2011, before becoming Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau called a cabinet minister a “piece of sh-t” across the floor of the House of Commons. Notably, he was permitted to remain after withdrawing the remark and apologizing. D2.0 deliberately closes this “withdraw and move on” off-ramp: under Section 2.3.1 such language triggers immediate ejection without warning, withdrawal, or apology, precisely so that enforcement cannot be bargained away or selectively applied.

This zero-tolerance rule applies only where the violation is clear and unambiguous. Where there is genuine doubt as to whether a violation occurred, the benefit of the doubt rests with the accused. In such cases the question is settled by a ruling of the Chair, subject to Appeal (S5.3.1.1) and reversal by majority vote, so that no single member may either force or veto a sanction.

This provision also applies equally to misconduct by the Chair, as to any other member. Should a Chair violate S2.3.1 they should immediately step down from the Chair of the meeting and excuse themselves from the meeting room. Should the Chair refuse to step down in this circumstance, or refuse to eject a member for S2.3.1 violations, then any member may raise a Point of Order (S5.3.1), and may read this section aloud while moving a special motion to Vacate the Chair, which must be seconded and, if seconded, must immediately go to vote without debate. A successful simple majority vote will result in the current Chair being removed from that role for the remainder of the current meeting. 

If, for any reason the Chair becomes vacant during the middle of a meeting then any member may temporarily take up the Chair, in accordance with policy, the Bylaws or other founding documents, for the sole and exclusive purpose of electing a new Chair for that meeting. 

Under no circumstances should a meeting be allowed to continue with recurring and tolerated violations of S2.3.1. If for any reason a Chair attempts to continue a meeting with members engaging in S2.3.1 violations, or if the Chair themselves engages in such violations and refuses to step down, then the assembly has an obligation to Vacate the Chair through the mechanism outlined above, replacing the delinquent Chair with any member who will exercise the duties of the Chair correctly.

If all else fails and S2.3.1 violations continue, then all other members of the assembly have an obligation to bring the meeting to a forced end by staging a walkout to break quorum, leaving one member behind to witness and Call Quorum by raising a Point of Order (S5.3.1). 

2.4.2 Other Breaches

Breaches of Respectful Decorum other than S2.3.1 should result in a corrective warning from the Chair, or failing that any member may raise a Point of Order (S5.3.1) to compel the Chair to do so. Three such similar breaches should then prompt the Chair to treat them as Serious Breaches under Section 2.4.1, ejecting the offending party from the meeting in the same manner as S2.3.1 violations. Each assembly may develop more detailed policy to suit their particular circumstance, including but not limited to a Code of Conduct or similar policy document.

CORE PRINCIPLES

P1. The Democratic Contract

All voting members are given a fair chance to present their ideas, and then the group as a whole chooses the most popular option by formal vote. In exchange for a fair process that enforces democratic freedoms of speech, thought and association, those of a minority view agree to abide by and support the majority’s will until such time as they can persuade enough of their peers to change their minds and hold a new vote.

P2. Majority Rule

Actions taken on behalf of the organization as a whole are decided by the formal support of the majority, defined as “more than half of those voting.” Tie votes fail, since half is not more than half. The will of the general membership of the organization, as expressed at a General Meeting (S3.2.1) by majority vote, is the final sovereign authority for all actions of the organization, constrained only by higher legal authorities (S3.3) that bind the organization (e.g., the courts, federal, provincial, state, common law, etc.)

P3. Equality

All voting members have equal rights, privileges and obligations, subject only to the additional rights, privileges and obligations bestowed upon individual members through the proper election or appointment of portfolios, offices, or other positions within the organization.

P4. Order

The organization can only function if there is order. Anything that causes disorder is an affront to the rights of the majority and the purpose of the organization itself. The Chair should immediately block actions of members that cause disorder. If the Chair fails to act to prevent disorder then individual members have an obligation to raise a Point of Order (S5.3.1) and demand that order be restored before the business of the meeting can proceed.

ANCILLARY PRINCIPLES

P5. Simplicity

Pointless formality and procedural complexity is harmful to the functioning of the organization on many levels. It is a barrier to participation (especially for new members), it clogs the effectiveness of meetings and generates frustration that undermines democracy itself. All democratic organizations should operate with the minimum complexity or formality consistent with the fair, efficient and legal transaction of business.

P6. Germaneness

All meeting business other than a Main Motion (S5.3.9) must be germane, that is: “closely or significantly relevant to the most proximal topic of deliberation.” All discussion, amendments, motions or other business must be germane to the motion on the floor. Only a properly formulated Main Motion (S5.3.9), by definition, need not be germane to anything else. It is important to note that “germane” entails neither support nor opposition; one may advance any position one wishes relative to a particular topic, so long as the position is relevant in some significant way, as determined by the Chair, or ultimately by the whole assembly if the Chair’s decision is subject to Appeal (S5.3.1.1).

P7. Specific Supersedes General

When a specific rule conflicts with a General Principle, the specific rule takes force. Exceptions to general principles require a specific rule, and in the absence of a specific rule the General Principle is in force. The Foundational Axiom is the only General Principle that can never be overridden by a specific rule.

P8. Silence Equals Consent

All members have the obligation to attend, participate and voice dissenting views. Failure to do so constitutes binding consent to the decisions of those who do. In accordance with this principle the Chair should always ask for “unanimous consent” on uncontroversial topics instead of calling a formal vote. Seeing no disagreement the Chair may then declare the resolution to have passed unanimously. If a member disagrees with the proposal such that they would vote against it the member is obliged to note their opposition to the Chair, thereby triggering a formal vote. In this way much otherwise routine business can be dispensed with quickly and efficiently.

P9. Agenda Transparency

Under the Agenda Transparency Rules (S4.2) meetings require a formal advanced call that includes a proposed agenda made available to all voting members. Every Main Motion (S5.3.9) requires notice of motion with draft wording in the proposed agenda. Only topics Germane (P6) to the draft wording included in the proposed agenda may be deliberated upon at the meeting. Any two voting members may give notice of motion by submitting draft wording for inclusion in the proposed agenda. Only an emergency with unanimous consent of all voting members present can allow a main motion to be moved at a meeting without advance notice in the meeting call. 

P10. One Speaker

Only one person at a time may speak. Only the person who has been granted the floor by the Chair has the right to speak.

P11. One Topic

Only one topic, in the form of a motion (S5), may be on the floor for deliberation at a time. Some motions have the power to interrupt deliberation of the current motion on the floor. When this happens the motion on the floor is temporarily suspended until the new motion is resolved, then the previous motion is immediately resumed at the exact place where deliberations were halted. It is possible for multiple such motions to arise, leading to a nested chain of embedded motions. Such nested motions are simply resolved in reverse order, one at a time. In this way no more than one motion at a time is ever under deliberation by the assembly.

P12. No Discussion Without a Motion

Closely related to the principle of Germaneness (P6), no discussion should occur at a General or Board meeting if there is no motion on the floor. All discussion must be germane to the proximal topic, and if there is no topic then nothing can be germane. From a pragmatic point of view, without a motion to focus debate a meeting could talk all night and get nowhere. The exception to this rule is at Committee (S3.2.3) meetings, where such free-ranging discussions are intended to take place.

P13. Speaking Rights

All voting members have the default right to speak twice to every motion, for a maximum of five minutes each time. No member may speak a second time to a motion so long as a member who has not yet spoken to the same motion is seeking the floor or on the speakers list. Exceptions to this principle may be permitted on a case-by-case basis by majority vote. If a member feels that an exception would serve the greater interest they may move to Permit Exception by stating the specific exception they propose to make to P13. Only exceptions to P13 are permitted. The motion is in order when moved by the member who has the floor, must be seconded, and may not be amended or debated. 

P14. Quorum

Democratic meetings are tools to make decisions on behalf of the entire group. For such decisions to be legally valid and binding the meeting must have a minimum number of voting members present and accounted for. It would be abusive and illegitimate, for example, to allow a meeting consisting of only two members to vote and enact decisions on behalf of an organization comprised of hundreds of members. The minimum threshold number of members needed to make decisions valid and binding is referred to as a “quorum.” A meeting that does not “have quorum” may not legally conduct business.

The specific threshold that constitutes quorum for a particular meeting may be set in the organization’s bylaws or other governing documents. In the absence of any such specification the default quorum for all assemblies is a majority (more than half) of the total current voting members of the assembly. Great care should be exercised when determining the quorum threshold; a quorum set too low may permit abuse by a small cabal of rogue members, whereas a quorum set too high may paralyze the organization by creating a threshold of attendance that is logistically difficult to achieve.

P15. Advance Preparation

It is expected that members should have proposals developed into a cohesive plan prior to presentation before a General or Board meeting. Meetings are neither the time nor the place for brainstorming, research, proposal development or fleshing-out of details. All members cannot be well versed in the details of all topics. If the meeting feels that more development is needed before a decision can be made the normal course of action should be to Refer (S5.3.6) the matter to a committee by use of the motion of that name. A committee (S3.2.3) comprised of voting members representing a cross-section of the organization should do the job of researching and developing a proposal on behalf of the group. The committee’s duty is to produce a detailed proposal for reintroduction and final consideration at a future meeting.   

P16. Chair Impartiality

The Chair only votes to make or break a tie. The Chair never gets a second vote to break a tie (as in Bourinot’s Rules, a glaring violation of the Equality (P3) principle). The Chair does not move, second or speak to motions except if the assembly has 7 or fewer voting members. If the Chair is a member and wishes to exercise their membership rights to debate motions (under the Equality (P3) principle) then they need to temporarily pass the Chair to another for the duration of the matter in question. They may only retake the Chair after the matter for which they have declared partisanship has been concluded. These Chair Impartiality restrictions are not in force in a deliberative assembly composed of 7 or fewer voting members. In such small assemblies the Chair may move, second and speak to motions, but must still use caution to fulfill their duties in an impartial manner in light of Chair Subordination (P17).  

P17. Chair Subordination

The Chair is a servant of the assembly delegated the task of maintaining order and exercises all authority at the discretion of the assembly. All rulings or other actions of the Chair require majority support. The Chair should be able to justify all rulings by reference to the organization’s approved Parliamentary Authority (this manual) or other legal authority (S3.3) binding upon the organization. Any ruling or action of the Chair can be Appealed (S5.3.1.1) to a vote of the assembly and overturned by a majority. The Chair may preemptively put controversial rulings to vote in order to preserve the impartiality of their position (P16).

P18. Dilatory Tactics Forbidden

Democratic rules are designed to facilitate and simplify the group decision-making process. Legitimate procedures can, in certain circumstances, be used to obstruct, delay or disrupt proceedings. When legitimate procedures are used this way it is the duty of the Chair, acting in their delegated role, to protect the proper function of the organization by barring such abuse. The Chair (or individual members through the use of a Point of Order (S5.3.1) may block such actions as a special instance of General Principle P4: Order.

1. 1. “Dilatory” is defined as any otherwise legitimate procedural action that is absurd, frivolous or devoid of rational content. Extreme care should be taken when suppressing legitimate procedures. It is possible for the majority to suppress legitimate dissent under the pretext of limiting dilatory actions, which would constitute a fatal violation of the Democratic Contract (P1). This Principle should only be invoked in circumstances that are obviously absurd or irrational, such as when one or two rogue members repeatedly raise the same point of order.
   2. It is important to distinguish between dilatory actions and a “filibuster” action, which is one of the few legitimate tools of a minority to express strong objection to a proposal. A filibuster involves minority members exercising their legitimate rights as a means of symbolic opposition. The majority always has recourse against a filibuster through use of the motion to Call the Vote (S5.3.3), and should never invoke P18 to suppress coherent forms of legitimate democratic dissent. The assembly itself is the final judge of what constitutes a dilatory action, in accordance with the above definition, although careful attention must be paid to preserve the Democratic Contract (P1).

P19. Conflict of Interest

No member may move, second, debate or vote on a motion for which they stand to make a financial gain different from all other members of the assembly. By general standards of ethical behaviour it is expected that members who stand to make a financial gain from the outcome of a proposal not common to other members will declare themselves in a conflict of interest and either abstain from all forms of participation (speaking, moving, seconding, voting, etc.) or physically absent themselves if information of a sensitive nature is being discussed (as when sensitive details of legal or financial negotiations are being debated.) 

P20. Distance Meetings

To be a valid meeting all members must be able to engage in real-time two-way communication with the meeting Chair at all times and all members must be able to hear the individual who currently has the floor in real-time. Any medium of communication that meets these criteria may be considered a valid meeting, including but not limited to web-, video- or tele-conferencing. 

Any member who is denied these rights is entitled to raise a Point of Order (S5.3.1) and the Chair is obliged to rectify the situation or declare a recess until the above requirements are met.

Since a member who loses connection is not physically able to raise a Point of Order (S5.3.1) in the defence of their own rights, it is therefore necessary for distance meetings to have strict rules around loss of connection or the inability to connect. If even a single member joins a distance meeting via remote connection, but then loses that connection or is disconnected for any reason, the meeting is immediately considered to have lost quorum and must halt all official business until such time as all connections to all members are restored. If a method of communication is unable to meet this standard of reliability then it should be construed as an invalid means of holding valid meetings.

If any of these requirements cannot be met due to circumstances beyond the control of the meeting organizers then that meeting may not be considered a legally binding meeting and must be treated as though the meeting lost quorum.

DISENFRANCHISEMENT 

Distance meetings are particularly prone to accidental disenfranchisement of individual members, and are vulnerable to deliberate abuse by unscrupulous operators. To mitigate this risk, if even a single member attempts to join a remote meeting and is unable to do so through no fault of their own, that member may submit documented evidence verifying their unsuccessful attempt as part of notice of a Main Motion (S5.3.9) to have that meeting rendered invalid and all resolutions of the meeting declared void. This rule places the onus on the meeting organizers and administrators to safeguard the uninterrupted enfranchisement of each and every member.

SECTION 3 – DEMOCRATIC STRUCTURE

S3.1 – Membership Rights

There is a sharp divide between members and non-members of a democratic organization. Members have the full range of democratic rights:

• • Vote
  • Move and Second motions
  • Seek the floor and speak
  • Seek and hold officer positions
  • Receive complete and timely information

Non-members have none of these rights. If the meeting is public they may observe the proceedings in what is called the “gallery” but they may not participate in any way. The only exception is that the Chair may recognize a non-member to speak in order to give a presentation or provide information requested to assist members during a meeting.

S3.2 – Types of Meetings

Any democratic group of individuals that collaborate in a formal decision-making process are technically known as a “deliberative assembly.” There are many names for deliberative assemblies, but for our purposes we may define any “deliberative assembly” as a democratic “meeting” and use the two terms interchangeably.

In the Democracy 2.0 system there are 3 types of meetings, forming a tiered hierarchy:

1. 1. General Meetings
   2. Board Meetings
   3. Committee Meetings

S3.2.1 – General Meetings

General Meetings consist of all voting members of the organization, called the General Membership. The General Membership, taken together, is the governing body of the organization. An act or resolution of the General Membership supersedes, overrides and voids the acts or resolutions of subordinate bodies within the organization, such as the Board, Committees or the actions of individual Officers.

The general membership, by voting at a general meeting, has the sole authority to do the following:

• 1. Establish or amend the organization’s governing documents, which typically include a Constitution, Bylaws, or other similar documents.
  2. Elect a Board of Officers delegated with the authority to act on behalf of the organization for the administration of day-to-day operations.
  3. Establish or modify membership fees or special levies.
  4. Establish, approve or amend a budget.
  5. Issue orders, directives or constraints upon the Board and/or Officers in the implementation of their duties.
  6. Elect and remove board members and/or Officers.
  7. Admit or expel members and set membership criteria.
  8. Dissolve the organization.

The general members may delegate these authorities, typically to a Board of Directors or similar body, provided that doing so does not violate higher legal authorities. 

To delegate their authority the general membership must expressly transfer power, either by way of a clause in the bylaws, or by a resolution passed at a general meeting.

There are two types of general meetings, the Annual General Meeting (AGM) and Special General Meeting (SGM.) Most democratic organizations are required by law to hold an Annual General Meeting once per year at a time specified in the Bylaws. If not required by external law it is still good practice for a democratic organization to place the requirement to hold an AGM in their Bylaws. The AGM is usually required to include, at minimum, the following agenda items:

• • Officer reports
  • Presentation and approval of budget
  • Election of Officers/Board Members

An AGM may also include additional agenda items, provided applicable notice has been given under the rules of Agenda Transparency (P9).

Special General Meetings (SGMs) are held to allow the general membership to make a decision on one or more specific motions. The agenda of an SGM is prohibited from being changed to deal with any item that was not included in the notice of the draft agenda at the time the SGM was called.

Other types of general meetings are possible, such as a Semi-Annual General Meeting (SAGM) held halfway between AGMs, a Biennial General Meeting held every two years, or various types of conventions and conferences. All of these alternate meeting varieties can be classed as a special instance of SGM.

A very unique form of the SGM that bears specific mention because of its particular properties is the Founding General Meeting. This is the first meeting of an organization where the governing documents themselves are debated and adopted. The principle of Agenda Transparency (P9) does not apply to a Founding General Meeting because prior to the ratification of the governing documents there are no members to provide notice of motion to. At a founding meeting a main motion may be moved any time that no motion is pending, or may be added to the agenda by amendments from the floor. 

S3.2.2 – Board Meetings

A Board is a small subgroup of members selected by the General Membership and given the task of administering the day-to-day operations of the organization. If the organization has staff the Board is solely responsible for the hiring, firing and direction of the Chief Executive Officer, who in turn is solely responsible for the hiring, firing and direction of staff. Individual board members are often called Directors, thus the name of the board is often called the Board of Directors, though other names could include Board of Governors, Council, Executive Committee, or Board of Trustees, to name just a few. 

Individual members of the board typically hold specific officer or executive portfolios, such as President, Vice-President, Treasurer and Secretary. Though these are the typical default officer positions, an organization is free to tailor their officer portfolios as they see fit.  For example, some organizations may replace “President” with “Chairperson”. Many will create officer positions tied directly to the mission of the organization. A Board member without portfolio is called an “at-large” member. 

It is possible for the Bylaws to permit a single person to hold more than one portfolio (e.g., Secretary/Treasurer), except that the same individual may never hold President and Vice-President. 

The selection process for officer portfolios should be set out in the bylaws. It is commonly done in one of two ways:

1. 1. A separate election for each officer portfolio may be held during the Annual General Meeting, or;
   2. The Annual General Meeting may select a number of members to become Directors on the Board. These Directors are selected as “at-large” positions without portfolio, and at the first board meeting (typically convened immediately after the AGM ends) the Board itself elects from among their members who will hold the various officer portfolios. This is the default method if none other is specified.

S3.2.3 – Committee Meetings

Committees are subordinate bodies composed of a subset of Board members. They are delegated the task of conducting detailed research, planning and development of particular proposals too cumbersome for the whole Board.

When completed, the recommendations of the committee are sent back to a meeting of the full Board for deliberation and (hopefully) approval, and where necessary forwarded on to a General Meeting for approval from the general membership. 

Committee meetings are usually informal and are not required to follow the usual rules of order, though it may be beneficial to do so at the discretion of the committee Chair. When creating a committee the Board should always designate the committee Chair, who is responsible for the tasks assigned to the committee. The board may also appoint additional at-large committee members to assist the chair. If the Board fails to designate a committee Chair then the first individual appointed to the committee may act as Chair. The committee Chair may enlist the assistance of others as he/she deems helpful to accomplish the goals of the committee. 

Depending on the size, complexity and duties assigned to the committee, the chair conducts the research with the assistance of others and reports back to the Board with the committee findings and proposals. This process may or may not involve formal meetings of the committee, depending on circumstances.

Committee meetings are informal and conducted in any fashion the Chair deems helpful for gathering the necessary information and producing a report to the board or general membership. Cross Talk is permitted and General Principles P6 and P11-P13 are effectively suspended at the discretion of the committee Chair, though the Chair may reimpose such restrictions if necessary for the effective function of the committee’s duties. Committees in larger organizations may be more formal in their structure and operate in the manner of Boards, with fully enforced rules of order. In small organizations the committee chair may simply act alone to get the job done. 

If there is strong disagreement about certain proposals within a committee it is possible for dissenting members of the committee to present a “minority report” to the Board alongside the official “majority” findings of the committee report.

There are three types of committees: Standing, Ad Hoc, and Committee of the Whole.

S3.2.3.1 – Standing Committees

Standing committees are in permanent operation, and are charged with ongoing duties central to the operation of the organization. Most organizations have some form of finance standing committee, typically chaired by the Treasurer or equivalent position. Other standing committees may also exist, depending on the size and purposes of the organization. As a general rule standing committees are established by clauses embedded in the Bylaws or other governing documents of the organization, which permits the committee to ceaselessly continue operations.

S3.2.3.2 – Ad Hoc Committees

These are committees created (S5.3.6.1) to perform a particular duty specified in the motion to create the committee. Any committee that is not established by clauses embedded in the governing documents must be established by a resolution of the Board. When the task for which the committee was created has been completed the committee is said to have “discharged” its duty and automatically ceases to exist. Typically an ad hoc committee is struck by the Board to research the details of a particular proposal and create a report for presentation back to the Board recommending one or more options for deliberation and approval.

S3.2.3.3 – Committee of the Whole

The Committee of the Whole is something of a misnomer, being not a committee per se, but a way for the entire Board (or even potentially a General Meeting) to side step the rigors of strict rules of order. Committees are not bound by the same formal restrictions on speaking and debate that a Board meeting is bound by. Thus, if a Board wishes to have a freewheeling discussion that relaxes the rules of decorum, the move to Enter Committee of the Whole (S5.3.6.2) during the midst of a meeting essentially acts to temporarily permit cross-talk and suspend General Principles P6 and P11-P13.

Obviously great care should be taken when suspending General Principles. Rules have been created through two-and-a-half millennia of trial and error. Suspending rules opens the door to the very problems that the rules were created to fix in the first place. Nevertheless, in situations where lower levels of formality can benefit the deliberations of the assembly a move to enter the Committee of the Whole can be an efficient tool for the smooth functioning of the democratic process.

S3.3 – Ranking Sources of Authority

Every democratic organization exists within a wider legal context. A deliberative assembly has authority to make certain decisions, but not others. Obviously the local Ornithologist Society cannot pass laws setting motor vehicle regulations, even by unanimous vote. It is vital to understand the limits on authority each group must work within. As a general principle, an organization can only make rules that are binding on its own members.

Each organization will need to determine their own unique relationship to the wider legal context, depending on the jurisdiction they operate within. However we can set down the following very broad ranking of legal authority that will apply to almost all democratic organizations. When two legal authorities are in conflict the higher-ranking authorities will overrule and void the lower ranking authority only with respect to the issue where the two are in conflict. 

This last point is critical and bears repeating with examples; if the Bylaws are amended in such a way that they contravene the law of the land then those clauses that contravene the law, and only those clauses, are void and without force. The entire set of Bylaws is not void, only the clauses that are in contravention of the law. Similarly, if the Board passes a series of standing rules, some of which contravene the Bylaws, then only those standing rules that contravene a higher authority are void, while those that are compatible with all higher authorities remain in force and binding on members.

AUTHORITY RANKING

1. 1. National, provincial, state, municipal, common law and the courts.
   2. Governing Documents of the Organization (Constitution/Bylaws) – established or amended by vote of a General Meeting.
   3. Rules of Order/Parliamentary Authority (this book) – usually entrenched within the Bylaws by vote of a General Meeting.
   4. Standing Rules – established by resolution of the Board, in force until amended or rescinded by the Board.
   5. Custom, unadopted rules of order, arbitrary authority of presiding officer.

SECTION 4 – MEETING ESSENTIALS

The Democracy 2.0 system is designed to make democratic group decision-making as user friendly as possible for the average member, without compromising fundamental principles or slipping into the expediency of dictatorship. A good system must balance the need for legalistic precision against maximum inclusiveness of members by keeping the process simple.

Formal democratic meetings can be intimidating, filled with esoteric practices that confound new and experienced participants alike. Some of these have evolved for good, practical reasons over 2500 years of trial-and-error. Others are merely archaic traditions without functional value. The Democracy 2.0 system strips down the meeting process to the essential elements, retaining those practices that have a valuable function and discarding everything else.

S4.1 – Flexible Formality

Meetings are flexible and allow dynamic give-and-take among members through debate and discussion. They are fluid and adaptable, but can be crippled by conflict if procedures get too lax. Many people malign the process of a formal meeting, yet worldly experience tells us that removing the structure of formal rules will usually result in the meeting devolving into a free-for-all, and in some cases actual violence.

Practical experience shows that modulating the formality of the meeting to suit the size and mood of the participants can improve efficiency, productivity, and the overall temperament of the group. With this practical wisdom in mind it is generally advisable to institute greater formality and procedural rigidity as the size of the group rises. Conversely, smaller groups can generally be less formal and rigid without loss of order or productivity. There are certain minimal levels of procedural formality that should always be maintained, Respectful Decorum chief among them. 

Above all else, as disagreement and passions rise, the level of formality must equally rise. The meeting Chair should exercise fluid discretion in finding the right balance of formality for each meeting and should remain flexible as tempers ebb and flow with time and the topic under discussion. The Chair is granted discretion in this area, but only by general consent of the members present.

When there is uncertainty or disagreement about the level of formality required for a certain situation the Chair should always automatically default to the higher state of formality. Any member may compel the Chair to impose a higher level of formality on the proceedings by raising a Point of Order if they feel uncomfortable with the temperature of the discussion. Thus, the Chair is free to modulate the flow of the meeting to lesser degrees of formality when expedient, but a single member who is made uncomfortable by lesser formality may trigger the reversion to higher formality.

S4.2 – Agenda Transparency

One critical feature of the Democracy 2.0 rule system is the introduction of a principle called Agenda Transparency. Under other systems such as Robert’s Rules it is possible for a caucus of members to ambush the meeting with a motion for their pet project, springing it by surprise with an amendment to the agenda after the meeting has started. This allows the ambushers to go into the meeting fully prepared to discuss the proposal but deprives those who may be opposed to the resolution an opportunity to prepare counter-arguments.

Even more crucially, ambush tactics may deprive some members of the opportunity to attend the meeting, unfairly stripping them of both voice and vote. There are always a certain percentage of members in any organization who may pick and choose which meetings to attend based on what they deem important. If a particular meeting is only dealing with housekeeping it may not be necessary for all hands to be present for the meeting. Such a situation is the ideal time for an ambush motion, potentially catching some opposition members away from the meeting who would have ensured attendance had they known the question was going to be raised. Such methods can be used to gerrymander the balance of votes, potentially tipping support for a close vote into majority territory where the same resolution would have failed with full attendance. Ambush tactics create instability and undermine several of the General Principles, most notably Majority Rule (P2). 

S4.2.1 – Transparency Rules

Democracy 2.0 introduces several requirements to combat ambush tactics and promote open, honest, fair and democratic meetings:

1. All meetings require an agenda.

2. All meetings, even regularly scheduled recurring meetings, must have a formal call to be valid and binding.

3. A proposed agenda must be included with the call of every meeting. Adoption of the proposed agenda is a Main Motion (S5.3.9) and must be the first item of business after the call to order and house keeping (quorum, temporary officers, etc.) The agenda may be amended (S5.3.7) normally like any other Main Motion (S5.3.9).

4. All voting members must be sent the call notice, which must include particulars of the meeting time and location, as well as the draft agenda for the meeting. Members are responsible for providing their official point of contact for notice of motions; this could be an email address, mailing address, telephone number, or some other method as specified in each organization’s governing documents. Each organization should specify the exact means and method by which they provide notice of motion within their governing documents. Proof the notice of meeting was sent is required to validate the meeting, and should be ratified at the start of the meeting.

5. All Main Motions (S5.3.9) require notice in the draft agenda during the call of the meeting. Notice must include a draft of the exact proposed wording for each Main Motion (S5.3.9). No Main Motion (S5.3.9) that has not been included on the proposed agenda during the call of the meeting may be moved at that meeting (exceptions for Emergency motions, see #10 below).

6. Any two voting members (mover/seconder) may submit a Main Motion (S5.3.9) in advance for inclusion in the agenda. The particular requirements (deadlines, etc.) for how notice of motions is submitted, how the draft agenda is drawn up, and how notice is delivered is left up to individual organizations to specify in their governing documents.

7. Main Motions (S5.3.9) may not be moved or added to the agenda after the formal call of the meeting (except by emergency provision #10 below).

8. Main Motions (S5.3.9) with notice in the agenda may be Amended (S5.3.7), so long as amendments are Germane (P6) to the draft wording included as part of notice.

9. If a majority of members do not even want the issue to arise they may vote to Amend (S5.3.7) the agenda by deleting the item altogether.

10. If an emergency arises, a Main Motion (S5.3.9) may be introduced without notice only by unanimous consent of all voting members supporting an amendment to the agenda. Such a motion may or may not involve moving to Reconsider (S5.3.5) the agenda if it has already been approved.

S4.3 – Required Agenda Items

Every draft Board or General meeting agenda must include the following items:

• • Call to Order
  • Quorum Confirmation
  • Election of Chair and Recording Secretary (if required)
  • Ratification of Meeting Notice
  • Approval of Agenda
  • Ratification of previous Minutes (not for Special General Meetings)
  • Officer & Committee reports (not for Special General Meetings)
  • Presentation and Approval of Budget (Annual General Meetings only)
  • Unfinished Business (not for Special General Meetings)
  • New Business
  • Conclude Meeting

S4.4 – Meeting Minutes

At every meeting one member must be designated as the Recording Secretary, responsible for keeping detailed notes that become the official, legal record of the business of the meeting. This record is called the meeting “minutes.” Recording Secretary is a vital job and should be taken seriously. If anything relating to the business of the organization should ever wind up in court it is the meeting minutes that will be submitted as legal evidence and official record of the organization’s actions.

The Recording Secretary should carefully note the following information during the meeting:

• • Scheduled date, time, and location.
  • A list of all voting members present, including officers.
  • Time of call to order.
  • The exact wording of all motions with mover identified (but not seconder).
  • The result of each vote (pass, fail) including manner of vote and count for and against (if counted) and the names of any noted votes or abstentions.
  • The time the meeting ended.

The Recording Secretary and Chair should both sign the minutes certifying their authenticity, once approved by vote at a later meeting.

SECTION 5 – MOTIONS

S5.1 – Motion Basics

A democratic organization makes group decisions through the use of “motions” or “resolutions.” Motions are statements of action, for the organization to do something. Resolutions are statements of principle, that the organization supports a certain belief or idea. In practice both terms are often conflated and used interchangeably, so they may be considered functionally synonymous.

Motions may not:

• • conflict with a higher authority (see section 3.3);
  • revisit a previous question already voted on except by the motion to Reconsider (S5.3.5);
  • be dilatory (see P18);
  • be moved while a higher ranking motion is on the floor (see section 5.2); or
  • conflict with any other D2.0 rule that is in force.

Any motion that does any of these things is out of order and should be blocked by the chair, who should immediately overrule the motion and carry on with business as though nothing had happened. If the Chair fails to block it any member may compel the Chair to do so by raising a Point of Order (S5.3.1).

Motions in the D2.0 system can be divided into three ranked categories that have particular attributes distinguishing them from each other. 

POINTS

• • Address the (sometimes urgent) needs or rights of a member
  • May be raised without having the floor
  • No second required
  • No debate

SUBSIDIARY MOTIONS

• • Act upon a previous motion or change the meeting procedure
  • Must have the floor
  • Must be seconded
  • Some may be debated

MAIN MOTIONS

• • Introduce an entirely new topic
  • Require notice at the call of a meeting unless there is an emergency
  • Emergency motion requires unanimous consent to add to the agenda

Discussion begins with the lowest ranking motion, a Main Motion (S5.3.9), and proceeds with the possible introduction and resolution of higher ranking motions until finally the main motion is resolved and the meeting moves to the next main motion listed on the agenda.

Because of P12: No Discussion Without a Motion it is assumed that any motion that is made aside from a Main Motion (S5.3.9) will be dealt with while another motion is already on the floor. P11: One Topic requires that only one motion be on the floor at any one time. This creates a conundrum requiring motions to have rank.

S5.2 – Motion Precedence (Rank)

The following list ranks all nine motions in descending numerical order from 1-9, with higher ranked motions coming first (lower number) superseding those below them (higher number) on the list. Lower ranked motions (higher number) yield the floor to higher ranked motions higher on the list:

POINTS

1. Point of Order (S5.3.1)
2. Point of Information (S5.3.2)

SUBSIDIARY MOTIONS

3. Call the Vote (S5.3.3)
4. Conclude (S5.3.4)
5. Reconsider (S5.3.5)
6. Refer to Committee (S5.3.6)
7. Amend (S5.3.7)
8. Postpone/Renew (S5.3.8)

MAIN MOTIONS

9. Main Motion (S5.3.9) – infinite variety, order determined by agenda.

If a motion is to be considered when another motion is already on the floor the new motion must take precedence and the previous motion must yield. If every motion were to yield to any other new motion, then a moment’s thought would reveal an infinite loop. Motion A is on the floor, a member moves motion B forcing motion A to yield, then a different member moves motion A forcing B to yield, ad infinitum.

To escape this infinite loop it is necessary for motions to have ranked precedence. The 11th Edition Robert’s Rules of Order lists a total of 86 possible motions, with a massively convoluted ranking system. D2.0 has eliminated or combined this list down to just 9 common motions, each performing an indispensable function necessary for an organization to conduct business fairly and efficiently.

When a member introduces a new point or motion the Chair should immediately compare its respective rank to that of the motion currently on the floor. Motions with equal or lower rank to the motion on the floor are out of order and should be refused by the Chair at that time. Motions with higher rank take precedence over motions with lower rank, in which case the motion on the floor yields to the new motion.

Beyond the nine ranked motions, a few miscellaneous procedural questions may arise that are deliberately left off the rank list, known as incidental questions: Appeal (S5.3.1.1), Division (S5.3.1.2), Permit Exception (P13), Vacate the Chair (S2.4.1), Secret Ballot (S5.4.3.1), and Roll Call (S5.4.3.2). These need no rank because, unlike the nine, they do not displace the business on the floor and leave it waiting; they pose a narrow question that is settled at once, after which the pending business resumes exactly where it stood. They yield only to a Point of Order (S5.3.1).

MOTION RANK EXTENDED ILLUSTRATION

It may be helpful to think of nested motions as a nested bullet list. Consider the following illustration:

Debate begins on Main Motion A from the approved agenda.

• • Motion A (i.e., Main Motion)

Someone moves Motion B to Amend, which bumps the Main Motion A down while the motion to Amend is being dealt with.

• • Motion B takes precedence (i.e., Amend)
    • Motion A yields (i.e., Main Motion)

The floor then shifts to dealing with Motion B (Amend). During the debate someone moves Motion C to Refer to Committee.

• • Motion C takes precedence (i.e., Refer to Committee)
    • Motion B yields (i.e., Amend)
      • Motion A yields (i.e., Main Motion)

The floor then shifts to dealing with Motion C, where someone moves Motion D to Call the Vote.

• • Motion D takes precedence (i.e., Call the Vote)
    • Motion C yields (i.e., Refer)
      • Motion B yields (i.e., Amend)
        • Motion A yields (i.e., Main Motion)

The floor then deals with Motion D to Call the Vote, which passes. The floor immediately reverts back to Motion C to Refer to Committee.

• • Motion C takes precedence (i.e., Refer)
    • Motion B yields (i.e., Amend)
      • Motion A yields (i.e., Main Motion)

The vote on the Motion C fails, so the floor immediately reverts back to dealing with the previous Motion B to Amend.

• • Motion B takes precedence (i.e., Amend)
    • Motion A yields (i.e., Main Motion)

After more floor debate on Motion B the vote is called and the amendment to the main motion is defeated. The moment the result on Motion B is announced the floor finally reverts back to Motion A where they started, with the Chair granting the floor to the next member on the original Motion A speakers list following the one who moved Motion B.

• • Motion A (i.e., Main Motion)

S5.3 – Motion Details

Specific details for each of the nine motions in the D2.0 system are listed below, in descending order of ranked precedence from the highest to the lowest. This is the order that nested motions must be resolved, highest motions first, and then successively lower. Motions will be introduced in the opposite direction, starting from the bottom of the list and moving upwards. A motion is out of order if it is equal or lower than the motion currently on the floor.

S5.3.1 – POINT OF ORDER: to correct a violation

Any member may raise a Point of Order to correct a breach in the rules of order, a transgression of member’s rights, a violation of law or anything else that illegitimately impedes or undermines the proper functioning of the meeting process. In D2.0 a Point of Order also includes what is known as a Point of Privilege in other rule systems. A Point of Order is the highest ranked motion; all motions yield to it except another Point of Order, which is in order when another has the floor and may interrupt the speaker. 

PROCEDURE: Any voting member may raise a Point of Order after noticing a violation by simply interrupting the proceedings and addressing the Chair with the words “point of order.” The Chair recognizes the member, asking what the nature of the violation is. The Chair must then rule on the point, either correcting the breach or ruling the point “out of order.” Regardless which way the ruling goes, the Chair is obliged to explain to the assembly the reasons for the decision, in accordance with the principle of Chair Subordination (P17).

S5.3.1.1 – APPEAL

In accordance with the principle of Chair Subordination (P17), any ruling or action of the Chair can be appealed to a vote of the members present and overturned by a Majority (P2). After the Chair has explained the reasoning for their decision, if any member is not satisfied with a ruling of the Chair the member may immediately interrupt the proceedings, addressing the Chair with the words “I move to appeal the decision of the Chair.” 

A motion to Appeal requires the second of another member. If moved and seconded, the member then explains to the meeting why they believe the decision of the Chair was in error. The Chair may then explain their reasons in response to the appeal, or may simply submit the decision straight to the vote so as to remain as impartial as possible. There can be no further debate, no one should speak during an appeal other than the Chair and the member making the appeal, and each may speak only one time. The Chair then calls the vote to the question: “Shall the decision of the Chair be overturned?” A majority vote is required to overturn the decision of the Chair. A tie vote sustains the decision of the Chair. As always, the Chair may only vote to make or break a tie.

Once the assembly has voted on the matter the decision is final and cannot again be appealed. Any further appeal on the same matter should be immediately ruled out of order as a dilatory (P18) abuse.

S5.3.1.2 – DIVISION

An “omnibus” motion is a single motion that contains multiple discrete proposals capable of standing on their own as separate motions. Each discrete proposal within an omnibus motion is known as a clause. Members may support some but not all of the clauses embedded within an omnibus motion. For this reason omnibus motions may be split into a separate motion for each clause contained within. Provided the omnibus motion has not yet been voted on, a single member may raise a Point of Order and compel the Division of the omnibus motion into separate motions that must be debated and voted on separately.

To do so a member raises a Point of Order and asks for Division of the omnibus motion, which must be granted. The main motion is then split into constituent clauses, with each component clause debated and voted on separately and in the order that they appeared in the original main motion.

S5.3.2 – POINT OF INFORMATION: to ask a question

The Point of Information is always and only a question. It is never an excuse to jump the speakers list or queue. Under no circumstances should the Chair allow a Point of Information to turn into a statement or a speech. The questioner must immediately state their question, and if no question is immediately forthcoming the Chair should be vigilant to cut the speaker off and rule them out of order.

There are two forms, one to direct a question to the speaker who currently has the floor, and the other to ask a procedural question of the Chair to help the member navigate the rules of order (called a “parliamentary inquiry” in some other systems). The Point of Information is always voluntary at the discretion of the member who has the floor. It is in order when another has the floor, but it may not interrupt the speaker if they make known their wish not to be. 

PROCEDURE: To raise a Point of Information the member should seek the attention of the Chair in the most non-intrusive manner possible, perhaps by raising a hand, standing in place or approaching a microphone. At an appropriate opportunity the member may then address the chair and ask for “point of information?” The Chair should immediately seek the will of the member who has the floor by asking if they wish to entertain a question at this time. If the speaker declines then the Chair must immediately rule the Point of Information out of order until the speaker yields the floor. 

If the member accepts the question the Chair then should direct the questioner to proceed by stating their question, being vigilant to only allow questions and to immediately rule out of order anything that strays into debate. Under no circumstances can a Point of Information be used to give a speech or move a motion.

S5.3.3 – CALL THE VOTE: to stop talking and vote now

The motion to Call the Vote is a fail-safe tool to prevent the business of the organization grinding to a halt by fruitless and repetitive debate. It protects the rights of the majority by ensuring that the democratic decision-making process actually makes a decision in a manner that is timely and practical. If the process cannot produce a timely decision then democratic group decision-making has failed. Ultimately the burden lies with the members to move business along.

If two members feel that the discussion of the pending main motion has gone on long enough they may move/second to Call the Vote. The mere act of moving the motion is a way of saying “enough is enough!” Without any debate members must decide if the interests of the organization are better served by allowing more debate to be heard, or by achieving resolution and getting on with other business. A successful motion to Call the Vote immediately cuts off amendment (S5.3.7), debate or the introduction of any further subsidiary motions, forcing the immediate vote on all pending subsidiary motions right down to and including the underlying Main Motion (S5.3.9). If multiple subsidiary motions are pending they are immediately resolved in reverse order of Rank (S5.2).

Call the Vote directly infringes upon the rights of those members who have not yet exhausted their speaking rights. For this reason there are strict rules governing when and how it is permitted:

• Call the Vote may not be moved if the member who has the floor has already begun debating the merits of the pending question; it is not a tool to get the last word in the debate;
• Call the Vote may not be moved if anyone who has not yet spoken to the motion is actively seeking the floor or on the speaker’s list;
• Call the Vote must be seconded, may not be amended, may not be debated and requires a simple majority.

PROCEDURE: To Call the Vote a member must gain the floor. It can never be used to get the last word, so it must be moved before speaking to the motion. Once the member has begun debating the merits of the pending question they may not move to Call the Vote during their current turn on the floor, though they may do so at a subsequent turn on the floor if they have not exhausted their speaking rights. The motion requires a second; if no second is forthcoming the motion immediately dies and the member may continue speaking. 

Having heard a second, the Chair should immediately call a vote, taking pains to make it clear that the vote is on whether or not to cut off debate, and not (yet) on the question they have been debating. Absolutely no debate or discussion should occur about whether or not to cut off debate, and the Chair should not recognize any members seeking the floor. Once seconded the only legitimate interruptions to Call the Vote are Points of Order (S5.3.1) or Points of Information (S5.3.2). If the vote fails, the member who moved the motion continues to have the floor and debate continues as before. 

If the vote succeeds the Chair should then immediately state the question on the floor, and without acknowledging any members seeking the floor should put the question to vote. Following a successful motion to Call the Vote the only legitimate interruptions are Points of Order (S5.3.1) or Points of Information (S5.3.2).

S5.3.4 – CONCLUDE: to end the meeting now

The motion to Conclude the meeting can be moved at any time that a member has the floor and, if the vote passes, will immediately bring the meeting to an end. This motion is always the last item on an agenda, but may be moved while business is still pending if the membership wishes to end the meeting before finishing the agenda. If there are still unresolved agenda items when the meeting ends they are automatically included under “unfinished business” on the agenda for the next meeting. 

It is not recommended to use the word “adjourn” if the intention is to end the meeting. “Adjourn” is merely a pause, and implies that it will be resumed at some point. Technically a meeting that “adjourns” must be reconvened, picking up where it left off on the same agenda. Given the requirements of Agenda Transparency (S4.2) and notice for Main Motions it is important to avoid use of the term “adjourn” or “adjournment” for legal clarity. The motion Conclude avoids these confusions.

PROCEDURE: The motion to Conclude requires that a member obtain the floor, and must have a second. It may not be amended, but it is debatable. The moment the vote passes the Chair announces that the meeting has officially ended.

S5.3.5 – RECONSIDER: to redo something previously done

The motion to Reconsider, also sometimes called “Rescind,” allows the assembly to revisit a previous vote. If new information has come to light, or the circumstances have changed the minds of some of the members, then any member may move to Reconsider a previous decision. The members of the original prevailing side will justifiably feel this to be a waste of time, so those advancing the desire to Reconsider a previously resolved matter had better have convincing arguments that the circumstances have changed, and also the voting numbers to back it up.

Robert’s Rules and some other systems distinguish the motions Reconsider and Rescind, but in D2.0 we combine them both into Reconsider.

No motion may be reconsidered that has already been acted upon or that is irreversible, such as selling an asset, signing a contract or spending money.

PROCEDURE: Once a meeting has voted on a particular question it is considered resolved and cannot be brought up again during the same meeting. The exception is by making a motion to Reconsider. The motion requires a second and may not be amended. It is debatable, but debate must be confined to the merits of re-debating the question, not to the merits of the question itself.

There are two very different forms of this motion, depending when the original motion was passed:

1. Reconsider Decision from the Current Meeting: If the motion in question was voted on during the current meeting then any member may move to Reconsider that vote by obtaining the floor while a lower ranking motion is pending. It requires a second. If Reconsider passes then the motion in question is immediately brought back to the floor and debate begins on the motion from scratch, as an entirely new Main Motion but with a higher rank than the Main Motion already on the floor when Reconsider was moved.
2. Reconsider Decision from a Previous Meeting: If the motion was passed at a previous meeting the motion to Reconsider must be submitted as a Main Motion according to the rules of Agenda Transparency (S4.2). At the start of the meeting during debate on the agenda those members who prevailed in the original vote should test the support for reconsideration by moving an amendment to the agenda that deletes the motion to Reconsider. If the deletion passes then the motion to Reconsider was a waste of time. If the deletion fails then the numbers in favour of reconsidering the motion have sufficient strength to legitimately warrant taking up meeting time when the motion to Reconsider comes up on the agenda. If at that time the motion to Reconsider passes then the meeting must immediately take up the motion in question as if it were an entirely new motion. A motion passed at a previous meeting may be reconsidered without notice as an emergency if it receives unanimous consent, just as an Emergency Main Motion would require under Section 5.3.9.1.

Some rule systems, notably Robert’s Rules, require that only a member who voted with the prevailing side of a motion may move to Reconsider. The Democracy 2.0 system follows Cushing and Sturgis in removing this requirement, which violates the democratic principles of secret ballot and Equality (P3), promoting gamesmanship rather than honest democratic conduct. As a practical matter it may be more persuasive for a member who wishes to change their vote to introduce the motion, but that is a matter for the members to determine, not the rule system. Under the D2.0 system any member may move to Reconsider.

S5.3.6 – REFER TO COMMITTEE: more research before making a decision

If a member feels that the current proposal before the meeting is not sufficiently complete or needs more development before a prudent decision can be made the correct thing to do under the D2.0 system is to send the Main Motion off to committee for study. The principle of Advance Preparation (P15) describes the correct role of committees in the D2.0 system. Section 3.2.3 describes the structure and function of the various forms of committees.

Ordinarily committees are subordinate bodies of the Board that are created by and report to the Board. It is conceivable that the General Membership could create a committee that reports to them directly, but such a body sets up a redundant parallel structure to the Board, which would be a violation of the Simplicity (P5) principle. In almost all cases the General Membership should Refer motions to the Board. In a practical sense the Board acts like a universal committee to the General Membership, and should be employed as such. True committees ought to be creatures of the Board, not the General Membership.

PROCEDURE: A member obtaining the floor anytime during lower ranking debate can move a motion to Refer. If successful the motion will immediately clear the main motion and all pending subsidiary business (amendments, etc.) from the current meeting agenda, placing the entire issue into the hands of the designated committee to develop the best solution. 

A motion to Refer must be seconded and may be debated. The motion must specify the committee to be referred to. If the motion to Refer wishes to set up an ad hoc committee with the specific task of developing the proposal in question then a motion to Strike Ad Hoc Committee (below) should also be moved, or included as part of an omnibus motion.

S5.3.6.1 – STRIKE AD HOC COMMITTEE

If a particular proposal warrants detailed study then a special ad hoc committee may be struck just for that task. A properly formed motion striking an ad hoc committee should include the following:

• Name of the committee;
• Designation of committee chair;
• A list of appointed committee members, and whether the membership of the committee is closed or open to the additional appointment of members by the committee Chair;
• Whether the committee business is confidential or public;
• A deadline for presentation of the final committee report.

S5.3.6.2 – ENTER COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Any time that a member feels that relaxing the rules of debate may facilitate the smooth conduct of business that member may move to Enter Committee of the Whole. The member must gain the floor while lower ranking business is pending. Such a motion requires a second, can neither be debated nor amended and has the effect of turning the current meeting into a committee meeting (S3.2.3.3) and simultaneously referring the present business to the Committee of the Whole for discussion. If the motion is successful the Chair continues with discussion of the proposal at hand using the relaxed committee procedure. Such discussion continues until a successful motion to End Committee of the Whole returns the meeting to the exact place in debate where they were when the motion to Enter Committee of the Whole was introduced.

S5.3.6.3 – DISCHARGE A COMMITTEE

A board may not resume debate on a motion if it had previously referred the proposal to a committee for development. To do so prior to the committee’s final report, or if the board simply wishes to take the subject out of the committee’s hands for some reason, any member may move to Discharge Committee. The motion may be moved when business of lower rank is pending, requires a second, may not be amended but may be debated. Discharging does not bring the object motion back before the assembly or place it on the agenda, it simply dissolves the committee without a recommendation.

S5.3.7 – AMEND: to change the wording of a motion

The motion to Amend is a proposal to change the wording of the motion on the floor in a manner that is germane. Thus, in accordance with the principle of Germaneness (P6) any changes to the wording of the motion must be “closely or significantly relevant” to the original wording on the proposed agenda of the formal meeting call. Any change that constitutes a clear non sequitur is out of order, for example:

• a motion about the annual budget can’t be amended to endorse a political party:
• a motion to purchase a new computer can’t be amended to purchase shares in a tech company:
• a motion to lower membership fees can’t be amended to dissolve the organization.

The reason for this rule should be clear—members were put on notice to allow preparation for the discussion of a certain topic, not some other non-related topic. Showing up to discuss a computer purchase is quite a different debate than one about the merits of playing the stock market.

However, so long as the proposed amendment remains relevant to the topic it need not maintain the spirit or intention behind the original. It is perfectly germane to change a motion in a manner that is hostile to or undermines the original. From the three examples above, it would be germane to amend the annual budget to zero, to limit the price of the computer purchase to $5, or to raise (not lower) the membership fees by 25%. In practical terms it may be more fruitful to just defeat the main motion than to try to undermine the intention through amendments. However there is a whole spectrum of compromise changes to a motion that might make the overall prospect of it passing more or less likely, and many of those potential changes might water down or partially undermine elements of the original motion. It is precisely this sort of give-and-take compromise to achieve majority support that forms the beating heart of democracy.

PROCEDURE: To amend a lower ranking motion currently on the floor the member must obtain the floor while the motion is pending, and then move to Amend. The amendment must be seconded and may be debated. Where possible the member should have the exact wording of the changes worked out in advance and provide this wording to the Recording Secretary at the time it is moved. 

Only Main Motions (S5.3.9) and motions to Postpone (S5.3.8) may be amended. Since the motion to Amend is of the same rank as itself (see section 5.2) it follows that meta-amendments are not permitted under the D2.0 system; that is you may not move to Amend an amendment. This is a substantial difference from Robert’s Rules of Order, which permits one (but not two!) levels of meta-amendments. In D2.0 if a member wishes to propose a different amendment they should seek to defeat the current one, then move their own amendment.

Once debate on the amendment has been exhausted the Chair calls the vote on only the change of wording, not the underlying motion being modified. If the amendment fails then the underlying motion’s wording remains unchanged and debate resumes on that motion from the point where the amendment was moved. 

If the amendment passes then the wording for the underlying motion immediately takes on the amended form. Henceforth all debate on that motion must be Germane (P6) to the newly amended form. Debate relating to the previous form is out of order. The debate on the underlying motion resumes from the point where it left off when the amendment was moved.

Since it is possible that the entire complexion of the underlying motion might have changed it is also possible that all prior debate may be obsolete. It is even possible that some members who spoke against the previous form may be in favour of the amended form, and vice versa. Consequently a single member may raise a Point of Order (S5.3.1) and require the debate to restart from scratch as though the motion was an entirely new motion (which, in essence, it is). In such a case no member has the right to speak first as motivation, but otherwise the Chair proceeds as though the motion were new.

S5.3.8 – POSTPONE/RENEW: to delay a debate or resume the debate

If a member believes it preferable to decide the present motion at a later time (or possibly never) they may move to Postpone. The motion to Postpone may specify a particular time when discussion will be renewed, or it may remain silent and leave the postponement indefinite. If the postponement is indefinite it will require a motion to Renew to bring it back, which is of the same rank and characteristics as Postpone.

PROCEDURE: Any member may move to postpone debate on a Main Motion currently before the assembly when no higher ranking business is pending. The member must obtain the floor to move the motion, which must be seconded and is debatable. The motion to Postpone may be amended to add, delete or modify a time when the motion is to be renewed. There are three possible outcomes to a motion to Postpone:

1. If Postpone fails, the debate continues where it left off.
2. If Postpone passes and specifies a time when the main motion is to be renewed, that renewal must be scheduled as a matter of course and no further action is required to trigger the renewal.
3. If Postpone passes but is silent on renewal then the main motion will remain dormant until such time as a motion to Renew is introduced onto a meeting agenda, either by means of the Agenda Transparency (S4.2) rules or by a motion to Amend (S5.3.7) the agenda, either at the start of the meeting during initial debate on the agenda, or later in the meeting by way of a motion to Reconsider (S5.3.5) the agenda. If the motion to Renew is successful the main motion being renewed will immediately take precedence, assuming the current position on the agenda.

The motion to “table” is widely used, however the term is frequently confused and misused, so should be avoided. The motion to Postpone replaces the motion to “table” in the D2.0 rule system.

S5.3.9 – MAIN MOTION: to introduce a whole new proposal

The Main Motion is a formal proposal for the entire group to take unified action or adopt a certain unified policy. If the motion passes then all members of the organization will be bound by the result, required to uphold and support the will of the majority under the principle of the Democratic Contract (P1).

The Main Motion is unique in that it introduces a substantively new topic for consideration before the assembly, and thus is the only motion that may ignore the principle of Germaneness (P6), though the main motion itself becomes the basis for determining if higher-ranking business is germane. 

The rules of Agenda Transparency (S4.2) requires that draft wording for a main motion be submitted in advance and included in the draft agenda as part of the official call of the meeting. For details of the transparency rules see Section 4.2.1. The member who submitted notice of the draft main motion is entitled to speak first to the motion, known as “motivating” the motion. 

PROCEDURE: To move a motion that introduces a substantially new topic it is necessary for the member to submit draft wording to whichever officer is responsible for preparing the draft agenda for the meeting call. The bylaws should specify which officer has this responsibility, with the default responsibility falling to the presiding officer. 

The wording of a main motion should be concise, unambiguous and expressed in a positive form. The mover of a motion may simply say the words “I move…” followed by their proposal. It is a common form to begin a motion with the words “be it resolved that” (abbreviated BIRT) though this is entirely optional. Any wording that is clear is acceptable. 

A single discrete and specific proposal should be confined to one sentence or paragraph within a motion, called a clause. It is possible to combine more than one clause to a motion, making the motion an “omnibus” motion, or a motion dealing with more than one proposal at a time. Additional clauses to a motion are frequently denoted by beginning with the optional words “be it further resolved that” (abbreviated BIFRT). 

A motion may also begin with an optional preamble, starting with “whereas” followed by a statement of background information intended to provide formal context or reasoning to the motion. The preamble only sets the stage, but does not contain a specific proposal. Below is an example demonstrating the form of an omnibus motion containing a preamble: 

Whereas the finance committee has prepared the annual budget based on the assumption of a 10% raise in membership fees;

BIRT the annual budget proposed by the finance committee be adopted, and;

BIFRT the annual membership fees of the society be raised 10% in accordance with the proposal of the finance committee.

S5.3.9.1 – Emergency Main Motions

In the case of an emergency the assembly may introduce a main motion in the midst of a meeting without notice by moving to Reconsider (S5.3.5) and Amend (S5.3.7) the agenda, but such a motion requires unanimous consent. If a single member believes the emergency motion to be illegitimate or an ambush tactic then that member may state their opposition, requiring the proposed motion follow the Agenda Transparency (S4.2) rules.

S5.4 – Voting

Voting in the D2.0 system has been made as simple as possible. Unless legally required by an authority higher than the parliamentary authority (see section 3.3) motions under the D2.0 system require a majority vote, which is defined as “more than half of those casting a vote.” This is known as a “simple” majority in order to distinguish it from other voting thresholds.

S5.4.1 – Simple Majority Vote Threshold and the “Nuclear Option”

The D2.0 system never requires a voting threshold higher than a simple majority. The various modified consensus models all use “super-majority” thresholds, with the pure consensus requiring 100% unanimity. The flaws of such a system were discussed in the 2014 preface.

Many rule systems, including Robert’s Rules, require a 2/3 majority in situations that restrict the rights of members, such as cutting off debate or to suspend the rules for a particular task. 

This is one important place where the Robert’s Rules of Order system is broken, as demonstrated by the so-called “nuclear option” deployed in the U.S. Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option). In brief, under Robert’s Rules any decision of the Chair may be overturned by appeal to a simple majority vote of the assembly. Thus, raising a point of order and overruling the Chair with a simple majority can defeat any super-majority requirement. Robert’s Rules is therefore structurally inconsistent, permitting one part of the rules to legally defeat another part of the rules. This is a systemic design flaw that can lead to both sides accusing the other, with justification, of illegal activity.

The D2.0 system fixes this problem by eliminating voting thresholds higher than a simple majority. Other D2.0 mechanisms such as Agenda Transparency (S4.2) are used to protect the rights of minorities, instead of vote thresholds.

S5.4.2 – Plurality Votes

In most circumstances the vote will be a simple binary yes or no to a motion, making one side the clear winner (remember, tie votes always fail because half is not more than half). It is possible for more than two options to be available, such as during elections to the board. Where three or more options are on the ballot it is possible for the option with the most votes to have less than a majority. For example, a meeting of ten members with three options on the ballot: option A could receive four votes, while B and C receive three votes each. In this case option A does not have a majority, but it does have the most votes, which is known as a “plurality.” When the option with the most votes is declared the winner, even if it receives only a plurality and not an outright majority, this is known as a “first-past-the-post” electoral system, borrowing a metaphor from horse racing.

The governing documents of an organization should define how to handle plurality votes, especially for elections. If they do not, then the following D2.0 rules can be used as a default:

All plurality votes must be by Secret Ballot.

A first-past-the-post election should be used for multiple candidates seeking multiple equivalent positions, such as a pool of at-large directors on the board. This system works well in this situation, such as when there are 10 candidates for 5 board positions. In such an example the top five vote getters would win the five positions. A tie for the final seat would require a run-off vote among only the candidates who tied for the final position.

First-past-the-post breaks down when there are multiple candidates for a single position. Take the above example of three candidates, with the top candidate receiving 40%, and the other two receiving 30% each; the majority would have strongly voted against the winner. This is a clear violation of Majority Rule (P2). 

When no candidate achieves an outright majority some voting systems force a “run-off vote” by requiring a re-vote with all but the top two candidates removed from the ballot. This is sub-optimal and permitted under the D2.0 system only if required by a higher authority (as per Section 3.3). In a democracy sometimes the third or fourth place option may wind up being the perfect compromise that can bring all sides together.

Under the D2.0 system, when no candidate receives more than half of the votes cast then a run-off vote is held, with the candidate that received the lowest number of votes dropped from the next ballot. The rounds of balloting continue, with the lowest polling candidate dropped from the subsequent ballot until one candidate receives more than half of the votes cast.

S5.4.3 – Voting Methods

The default method of voting in the D2.0 system is by show of hands or voting cards, depending on context. To call the vote the Chair reads (or has the Recording Secretary read) the exact wording of the motion, pauses briefly to allow Points of Information (S5.3.2) from members who may be unclear about something, then asks “all those in favour” to indicate in the appropriate manner. The Chair then calls for “all those opposed” to indicate in the same manner. Counting the votes is up to the discretion of the Chair, depending on the size of the meeting and the apparent vote differential. If the result is clearly for one side no count is needed. If any members are uncertain of the outcome the Chair must count the vote and may designate an assistant to help count. Once the vote outcome is determined the Chair must announce the result and ensure the Recording Secretary records it in the minutes. 

An archaic method of voting is by “voice vote,” where members merely yell out “yea” when the Chair calls for those in favour, and “nay” when the Chair calls for opposed. This imprecise method has few advantages and obvious disadvantages compared to a show of hands or voting cards. Under the D2.0 system it should not be used unless required by a higher authority as per Section 3.3. Other voting methods include:

S5.4.3.1 – Secret Ballot

Any time during discussion of a motion a member may move that the vote be by secret ballot. The motion requires a second and may not be debated nor amended. If passed by majority vote the Chair and Recording Secretary should jointly oversee the balloting and counting of ballots, taking special care that the identity of those casting the ballots remains secret. Recounts may be requested and witnessed by members. Once the votes are satisfactorily counted a motion is required to ratify the results and to destroy the ballots, after which the result is final. All plurality votes and candidate elections must be conducted by secret ballot.

S5.4.3.2 – Roll Call Vote

A single member may require a roll call vote instead of a vote by hands or voting cards. In a roll call vote all members must vote publicly, one at a time, with each member’s vote (for/against/abstain) recorded in the minutes. To ask for a roll call vote a single member need only state the request while they have the floor during debate of the motion in question. A roll call vote is required when requested by a single member, unless the meeting approves a different voting method by majority vote. 

SECTION 6 – ASSORTED MEETING MECHANICS

The following is intended as a concise summary of assorted meeting mechanics under the D2.0 rule system, for the aid of new and veteran democrats alike. These points are listed in no particular order and may be adjusted over time.

1. A meeting begins with a “call to order” by the Chair, meaning that the rules of order are in force.

2. All meetings require a minimum of two officers: the meeting Chair responsible for presiding and keeping order, and the Recording Secretary responsible for keeping the formal record of what happens at the meeting, in the form of the meeting Minutes (S4.4).

3. The meeting Chair controls the flow of the meeting, grants the floor, and rules on all matters relating to the operation of the meeting.

4. The Recording Secretary keeps detailed notes of the formal actions taken by the meeting, including those members who are in attendance, the time at which the meeting was called to order and ended, the exact wording of all motions, and any other relevant information directed or requested by members.

5. Usually the Chair and Recording Secretary have been designated in advance by virtue of holding officer positions. If a particular meeting finds itself without one of these officers present, the first order of business necessary before the meeting can properly begin is to choose who will fill these roles from among those present at the meeting. If the Chair is absent any member may call the meeting to order and ask for a vote on temporary replacements. Should the absent officer arrive they should immediately resume their properly designated role. 

6. If the Chair has been vacated during the middle of the meeting then any member may temporarily take up the Chair, in accordance with the Bylaws or founding documents, for the purposes of electing a new Chair for that meeting. 

7. The meeting must have a minimum number of members present to be legitimate. This minimum is called Quorum (P14) and is usually set in the bylaws or founding documents.

8. Any voting member of the assembly may formally propose that the group as a whole take a particular action by moving a Motion (S5), the wording of which must be precise. To move a motion a member must obtain the floor (for subsidiary motions) or have submitted the motion in advance as part of the agenda (for Main Motions as part of Agenda Transparency). 

9. A motion that raises an entirely new topic is called a Main Motion (S5.3.9). Main motions must have draft wording included in the draft agenda, which must be included with the official meeting call. All voting members must be notified of the meeting call and must be provided the draft agenda. This procedure is called Agenda Transparency (P9) and is designed to prevent ambush tactics.  

10. During discussion someone who has the floor can move “subsidiary” motions that modify the main motion or modify the process of deliberation.

11. Any subsidiary motion may be moved from the floor, provided the current pending business is of lower Rank (S5.2) than the subsidiary motion being moved.

12. A subsidiary motion is treated in all respects as a new motion, however it must relate to the same subject as the main motion, which is called being Germane (P6). 

13. Most motions must be seconded. To second a motion any member may simply call out “I second” or something similar, showing that at least some members are interested in discussing it and so is worthy of discussion. Seconding a motion does not imply support of the motion, only that the seconder believes the motion should be debated. If a motion requiring a second fails to receive a second this indicates the motion is a waste of time and immediately dies. The identity of the seconder does not need to be recorded, the Chair simply assents that a second was made and moves to the motion debate, or declares that the motion dies for lack of a second and moves on to the next item.

14. Once the mover of the motion receives a second they have the right to immediately speak to the motion to explain why it is a good idea. This is called “motivating” for the motion.

15. Once a motion has been seconded the meeting must deal with the proposal in some fashion before moving on to the next agenda item; no motion can be ignored or skipped, nor may the mover withdraw it, without some sort of resolution voted on by the meeting. The ways to dispense with a motion are: voting on it (whereby it passes or fails); Refer (S5.3.6) it to committee; or Postpone (S5.3.8), either to a specified time or indefinitely.

16. A main motion can be changed by moving the subsidiary motion to Amend (S5.3.7).

17. Some special motions can be made without having the floor, thereby interrupting the proceedings. These are generally classed as “points” (S5.1).

18. If you have a question about either the content of the discussion or the process itself you may get the attention of the chair and raise a Point of Information (S5.3.2), which allows you to ask a question only. The question can be directed either to the Chair (if it is about procedure) or to the speaker (if it is about the substance of the discussion) but it should not interrupt proceedings unless urgent.

19. Discussion on the motion ends and the Chair calls for the vote when everyone has spoken twice, when no one else seeks the floor, a motion to Call the Vote (S5.3.3) passes, or if a previously approved time limit, deadline or other trigger ending discussion has occurred.

20. Unless the meeting votes for a different method the vote will be by show of hands or voting cards.

21. The Chair should ask for unanimous consent rather than voting on matters that are not likely to be controversial. Only when it is obvious that there is opposition to a motion should the Chair call for a vote. If the Chair asks for unanimous consent it is the responsibility of a member who opposes the action to make their objection known, in accordance with Silence Equals Consent (P8).

22. Any member may, following the vote, ask the recording secretary to record how they voted in the minutes.

23. Barring unusual circumstances the first motion at a meeting is to adopt an Agenda (S4.3) as the formal schedule for the meeting, which may or may not include scheduled times for specific items. See Agenda Transparency (P9). Once the agenda has been adopted the meeting may not deviate from the approved agenda without a vote to Reconsider (S5.3.5) and Amend (S5.3.7) the agenda. 

24. If the approved agenda contains scheduled items at designated times then other business must be interrupted when the designated time arrives. Preempted or unfinished business may be resumed at the end of the agenda or postponed until the next meeting. 

25. If the meeting deviates from the agenda without a motion to do so any member may compel the meeting to return to the agenda by raising a Point of Order (S5.3.1).

26. To obtain the floor you must be recognized by the Chair. How this is done will vary with different meetings of different sizes, but it may involve raising your hand, standing, approaching a microphone or otherwise getting the attention of the Chair, who must then acknowledge you before you may speak.  

27. The Chair will keep a speakers list if multiple people seek the floor at the same time. In large assemblies microphones may be used, in which case the line-up to the microphone may replace a speakers list. Some organizations may have separate microphones and/or speaker lists for those wishing to speak for or against the proposed motion. Some organizations may have a policy of alternating between speakers for and against a motion, although this is not a D2.0 rule. In the absence of any such rule the Chair has full discretion to determine the speaking order, who to recognize and when to recognize them; this is one of the core duties of the Chair.

28. There can be no discussion without a motion, and all comments by the speaker who has the floor must be Germane (P6) to the motion on the floor. The Chair should immediately stop off topic discussion.

29. Members may have a maximum of two turns on the floor for each particular motion under debate, though no member may take their second turn on the floor so long as any member who has not yet spoken seeks the floor.

30. If the Chair feels that a short break in the meeting is necessary they can call a “recess” that can be as short as 5 minutes but should not be longer than 30 minutes. If a member objects to a recess being called they may raise a Point of Order (S5.3.1) and Appeal (S5.3.1.1).

31. Once a meeting has voted on a particular question it is considered resolved and cannot be brought up again during the same meeting, except by way of the motion to Reconsider (S5.3.5).

32. There are only two possible ways that a meeting can properly end:

1. 1. 1. A motion to Conclude (S5.3.4). Such a motion is ordinarily the last item on an agenda, though it can be moved any time that a lower ranking motion is on the floor.
      2. The loss of Quorum (P14) immediately ends a formal meeting, though the meeting may continue informally if those present wish. Any resolutions, votes or decisions taken without quorum are void, holding no legal weight as though they never happened. If any member suspects that a meeting is operating without quorum they may raise a Point of Order (S5.3.1) to “call quorum,” thereby forcing a counting of voting members present and immediately ending the meeting if a quorum is not present. However, should members return to the meeting in sufficient numbers to restore quorum then the meeting may resume business from the point on the agenda where quorum was lost; thus if some members step out briefly the meeting may temporarily lose quorum, but the meeting need not be lost if they return in short order and quorum is restored. In such a situation the Chair should call a recess until quorum is restored or it becomes clear that quorum is irretrievably lost and the Chair declares the meeting concluded. 

33. After a motion has been decided at a previous meeting, the members on the minority side who wish to reverse the decision must lobby behind the scenes to change the minds of enough members on the prevailing side to change the outcome of the vote. If they believe they have done so they may re-submit the issue as a main motion to Reconsider (S5.3.5), in accordance with Agenda Transparency (P9). Doing so must be based on the reasonable belief that the former minority now holds the majority view, in accordance with the Democratic Contract (P1). The original prevailing side may test the strength of the claim by moving to delete the motion to Reconsider (S5.3.5) from the proposed agenda prior to ratification of the agenda. If the former minority cannot muster enough votes to keep the motion on the agenda then revisiting the motion would be a waste of time and energy.