Karl M

I agree as to the presiding officer - we are all just volunteers trying to keep the ship afloat, so I can see how challenging it can be when you have members actively questioning a lot of your moves. Yes, we wanted to leave the opening for members to bring issues through the more formal "additions, Corrections, adoption of Agenda phase" instead of just having ideas be interjected constantly during new business... Is that mostly kosher? Maybe it isn't all that different, but it seemed to be hitting a compromise zone to help keep the meetings a bit more orderly...

Thanks for the help, sorry I did not see that you all had responded. So Josh is more in line, we are looking at how to limit soapboxing and grandstanding especially on issues that have been raised and defeated on previous meetings or on things that are on the agenda for future meetings (as they are calendar sensitive). Would that be considered 'dilatory'?

I should add besides the hogging/railroading/beating dead horses, the rhetoric can also be toxic/hostile - which of course we hope that by allowing the general membership to control what gets added (besides what the trustees add) that it will have a double effect of simmering the conversation down.