Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About .oOllXllOo.

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

389 profile views
  1. Yes...try to change the culture, move or quit.
  2. If a member is to be disciplined, is it required to tell them why they are being disciplined? If a non-member (or member) is removed from a committee, are they typically given a reason (is it required to give them a reason?)
  3. I have asked it is all the ways I can, I believe. I can’t really ask in any more ways without the understanding that would be reached by actually listening to or witnessing what I’m talking about. You all have been patient, informative, kind and courteous. Even if you witnessed when I refer to-the unfolding of a meeting-the solutions that you point to would likely be the same. Calling out issues in an environment where little is invested in understanding or respecting the rules of order has done nothing but made people think I’m being too meticulous, and since they have not been the focus of what I have issues with, they don’t necessarily care that I have. The truth is, things like interrupting, talking whenever people feel like just blurting things out, while others wait politely, back and forth exchanges that wear out the effectiveness of an argument because of belittling comments or fallacious counterarguments or questioning, that happens in almost every meeting. It is stressful when I feel the Rules are the only thing that can help, because they are the only official resource to pull from, and that the level of knowledge and interest so far with them are minimal at best. It feels like a lone fight for something that’s supposed to be at the center of our transactions, but it’s not, and neither is the understanding of why they matter, their true purpose, and that they are not just some pain in the neck mandatory formality. Personally I think all the officer positions all need charters to clarify and reinforce the scope of the duties and responsibilities, because I think sometimes people assume things, and then act accordingly, and sometimes they assume something from ignorance, or it might be strategic, but in either case-it can be a wrong assumption. If they do that long enough, and if what they’re doing is inappropriate, it becomes a malformed cultural tradition...like a tumor, that’s hard to formulate a remedy for, especially when that tumor gives someone something that serves them, and especially when someone fighting against that feels alone in seeing that there is something amiss, and showing others that it matters, and that it’s worth it to try a bit harder to get it right. Sorry for the rant. I’m not sure I’ve communicated anything new or helpful.
  4. I removed a specific example that was not needed in order for the question to be clear. I didn’t think it would be an issue since at the time, there was only one very brief response, and it was in response to the general question, not the example. The question was too convoluted with the extra example included. The example was redundant of the original question. Yes, I realized the name change would be universal. I got tired of looking at the other name. I realize I keep asking questions that are very similar, because I keep thinking I’m not capturing the nuances of the situation. It would be easiest to be a fly on the wall at meetings, but they do not have a good reaction to recording, even though it is allowed by law.
  5. Calling people by their first names, speaking back to those in debate as though they and answering them directly, like a conversation, going back and forth with other members as they speak until they have “won” the exchange, after someone has spoken, paraphrasing their argument and then saying they disagree with it, having ongoing conversation with the management, directing management independently of board voted-upon action, directing vendors outside of board voted-upon action, interjecting their opinion anywhere they wish... basically not keeping to the “chairperson” script, if one were to strip it down to its basics.
  6. From watching city council or other kinds of board meetings that demonstrate a chair person in action, it seems like that position and the duties associated with it are very neutral and procedural, and do not typically have “personality” injected into them. In a situation where the chair in injects a lot of personality into the role, is it appropriate to remind them that it is a neutral role? In a situation where they have been doing this for a long time, how might one approach it?
  7. If By-Laws do not mention any process about complaints an assembly member has about another member, is there anything in RONR about how to deal with a complaint? example: *abuses of power - multiple *bullying behavior-many instances *not adhering to parliamentary procedure Is what is contained in the chapter on discipline the only guidelines given? What if an infraction happens in a meeting, and the member was so frazzled by it, that they didn’t understand until later that a violation of decorum occurred? What if a procedural violation occurred outside a meeting by a manager (non-board member)?
  8. It was a specific point of discussion that those treees were that member’s recommendation, as it was their job in the months prior to recommend tree types. The chair initiated the member’s expulsion from the role, after the member questioned the chair’s power, in a prior interaction.
  9. Thank you for your input. We are using the small board rules. Would it matter if the chair was right next to the member who they were speaking to and turned directly to them to tell them about the ugly thing, instead of addressing the room perhaps? Or might thete have been a difference if the chair had said : “I think your choices are bad” (to the member) and then went on to say things about the ugly trees?
  10. I have no idea if the following would be considered a violation of decorum or not. Example: we are in discussion of a proposal for trees to plant member, upon discussion of a proposal where a different tree type was on a prior proposal that had not been voted on: member: these trees have a successful history on our site, and are green all year round chair: well, I happen to think those trees are ugly. They are the ugliest trees we have on site, in fact. I don’t like those trees, and I’ll never vote for them. member: They were recommended by three different professional agencies, as well as the city, and they are very versatile. chair: Go ahead and make your motion if you want them approved, I’ll even be nice and second your motion. member: I move that we approve these trees for planting chair: second! chair: any discussion? member: reiterates all the merits of the tree type to the fellow board members, who are all looking as if they are cringing chair: any other discussion? (None...blank stares) chair: all in favor say aye! member: is the only one that says aye chair: the motion fails! chair: looks at other members, then initial member and laughs: I guess nobody else wants those trees either!
  11. Thank you, I think IF I have a venn diagram of the answers I have gotten, there would be a fair bit of overlap, but this is a good part of the bottom line that I was hoping to get to. The other would be the duties of president, which was covered by Bruce and Richard. Thank you all for your patience.
  12. The point I have been trying to confirm, is that if chairing a meeting, the President should chair it like anyone else who is capable might. I am trying to confirm, albeit in a roundabout way, and I apologize for that, that they do not have the right to be like a judge, dictator or ruler while chairing, just because they have the title of President while they are doing the Chair's job. My lengthy dialogue here was trying to confirm that if the roles are separated, their duties become clear and distinct from each other, but if they are both being fulfilled by the same person, they are not endowed with extra powers because of it, that would be outisde of the sum of the parts (of the two roles).
  13. Part of what I'm trying to get at here, is the idea that if, in an orgnaization that had a board of 7, including the president of the association, if they elected to have a chairman also, which they could, and the chair presided over the meetings, at that point, would the president be doing anything different than any other member, during the meetings? Would they have more power in any way, or extra things to do, while in a meeting, because they were president? Given the By-Laws as show in the original post?
  14. Looking on page 43 line 16-19, it is said that speakers should avoid injecting a “personal note” into debate. What does “personal note” mean, in this context?
  • Create New...