Personal attacks

[Guest Thomas]

We have a situation where board members of a municipality are using the meetings to stage personal attacks. One way it is being done is under the reports of board members of new business where they begin with a subject and then slide into criticism of a certain board member. Another way they have done it is to approve a third perty to come in and give a report regarding an investigation of a vendor. The investigation coincidentally moves to a criticism of that same board member. How do you stop this when those criticizing improperly have the board majority and 2/3 control? (although not the chair)

[Chris Harrison]

We have a situation where board members of a municipality are using the meetings to stage personal attacks. One way it is being done is under the reports of board members of new business where they begin with a subject and then slide into criticism of a certain board member. Another way they have done it is to approve a third perty to come in and give a report regarding an investigation of a vendor. The investigation coincidentally moves to a criticism of that same board member. How do you stop this when those criticizing improperly have the board majority and 2/3 control? (although not the chair)

A Point of Order can be raised that decorum in debate is being violated by attacking the Board member (RONR p. 380). However, if a majority of the Board are fine with this there is little that can be done parliamentary procedure wise there. If there is a General Membership who is superior to the Board the Board member can bring the issue to them and hope that he will get better results.

[Rob Elsman]

We have a situation where board members of a municipality are using the meetings to stage personal attacks. One way it is being done is under the reports of board members of new business where they begin with a subject and then slide into criticism of a certain board member. Another way they have done it is to approve a third perty to come in and give a report regarding an investigation of a vendor. The investigation coincidentally moves to a criticism of that same board member. How do you stop this when those criticizing improperly have the board majority and 2/3 control? (although not the chair)

The presiding officer has the duty of his office to apply the rules fairly and evenly without regard to the sizes of the various factions.

[Gary Novosielski]

The presiding officer has the duty of his office to apply the rules fairly and evenly without regard to the sizes of the various factions.

And not only that, it will often work just fine. Factions that are breaking the rules usually don't want that fact pointed out, and will often stop if simply called on it.

I remember my first meeting years ago as an elected board of ed member in my town. A long-time member of an opposing faction was very fond of doing what the OP describes--she would haul back back and rail at length against all manner of real or perceived irregularities in the ethics, intelligence, or parentage of other board members. The president was not very knowledgeable, and mostly just sat and looked uncomfortable until she was done, as did everyone else.

I said something she didn't like in discussing some item of business, and she broke in, "Just a second, if you think you're going to come in here and....."

"Point of Order!", says I, "Would the chair please instruct the member not to interrupt while others have the floor, and that when her remarks are in order, they are to be addressed to the chair."

Everyone, including the chair, was surprised at how easy it was to shut her up. He told her that, yes, she had to wait her turn, and that she was not supposed to address others directly but through the chair. He knew the rules but simply lacked the initiative to apply them.

Well, she never could get the hang of addressing anything through the chair* and just stumbled and fumbled around when she had to start doing it. She could never work up anything that even rose to a breach of decorum when she was forced into that mode (which is why the rule exists in the first place). She soon found that serving on the board without the ability to berate others was a barren source of amusement, and resigned a few months later.

__________

*The British House of Commons has this down to an art, and can effectively call you an idiot while still addressing their remarks to the chair: "Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Right Honorable Member has the slightest inkling of what havoc would be unleashed upon those unfortunate enough to survive long enough to witness his ill-conceived and impossibly designed proposal ever becoming law?"

(Hey, I'm just wonderin'.)

[Josh Martin]

The presiding officer has the duty of his office to apply the rules fairly and evenly without regard to the sizes of the various factions.

I agree, but if a large enough faction has no respect for the rules and knows what it's doing it will ultimately prevail over the presiding officer. If that's the case, the only answer may be to get new board members.