1. What would a meeting that broke every rule of parliamentary procedure be like? Describe some rules of parliamentary procedure. Then explain what breaking each of those rules might lead to.
A meeting that broke every rule of parliamentary procedure would likely be chaotic, disorganized, and frustrating for all participants. Some common rules of parliamentary procedure include:
1. The chair maintains order and enforces rules: Breaking this rule could lead to constant interruptions, shouting matches, and a lack of respect for the chair's authority, resulting in a complete breakdown of communication.
2. Only one person speaks at a time: Ignoring this rule could result in multiple people talking over each other, making it impossible to hear and understand what anyone is saying, leading to confusion and frustration.
3. Each member has the right to speak: Disregarding this rule could result in certain individuals dominating the conversation, while others are unable to voice their opinions or concerns, leading to feelings of exclusion and marginalization.
4. Motions are made and seconded before discussion: Failing to follow this rule could lead to impulsive and uninformed decisions being made without proper consideration or debate, resulting in poor outcomes and potential conflicts.
5. Votes are taken to make decisions: Ignoring this rule could lead to decisions being made without consensus or agreement, creating discord and resentment among members, and undermining the legitimacy of the meeting's outcomes.
In summary, a meeting that broke every rule of parliamentary procedure would likely be highly dysfunctional, with little to no productivity or collaboration among participants. It would be characterized by chaos, confusion, and conflict, making it difficult to achieve any meaningful outcomes or resolutions.