Guest Stephen Posted May 12, 2012 at 12:04 AM Report Share Posted May 12, 2012 at 12:04 AM Is it permissable or even proper for a member or group of members to single out or identify other members that they (in their minds eye) don't feel are living up to their perceived "expectations" of what a member should be doing? Even though these targeted members are abiding by the constitution and by-laws and fulfilling membership responsibilities, a select few members want to single them out and make examples out of them because they feel they members should do more. Isn't this discriminatory and an act unbecoming of the member? Just need Roberts Rules of Order take on this. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted May 12, 2012 at 12:16 AM Report Share Posted May 12, 2012 at 12:16 AM Is it permissable or even proper for a member or group of members to single out or identify other members that they (in their minds eye) don't feel are living up to their perceived "expectations" of what a member should be doing? Even though these targeted members are abiding by the constitution and by-laws and fulfilling membership responsibilities, a select few members want to single them out and make examples out of them because they feel they members should do more. Isn't this discriminatory and an act unbecoming of the member? Just need Roberts Rules of Order take on this. ThanksDoes this "singling out" by these members take place during meetings? What is it that they actually do or say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted May 12, 2012 at 12:30 PM Report Share Posted May 12, 2012 at 12:30 PM Yes - the singling out occurs during meetings. What they are doing is reading off the names of those members that they feel could be doing more, but aren't. In other words, there are minimum standards that everyone must uphold to. And nobody has a problem with that. The problem lies with the members that are going up and beyond the minimum standards who feel that everyone should be giving a little more. The general feeling is, hey that's great that you can give more, but don't expect everyone to do the same. So in an act of desperation, this bunch of goodie two-shoes wants to read off the names of the members that they feel should give more to the organization. The majority feel what works for you doesn't necessarily have to work for us. I just wanted to know whether or not RROO condones this type of behavior or if there is anything that protects the members from this . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted May 12, 2012 at 12:56 PM Report Share Posted May 12, 2012 at 12:56 PM . . . this bunch of goodie two-shoes wants to read off the names of the members that they feel should give more to the organization.Well, "bunches" of members don't have any official standing but if any one member addresses the chair (or, worse, the assembly) in this manner (i.e with personal attacks and with no motion pending), the chair should rule him out of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted May 12, 2012 at 01:27 PM Report Share Posted May 12, 2012 at 01:27 PM Well, "bunches" of members don't have any official standing but if any one member addresses the chair (or, worse, the assembly) in this manner (i.e with personal attacks and with no motion pending), the chair should rule him out of order.I'd say even with a motion pending, personal attacks should not be allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted May 12, 2012 at 02:32 PM Report Share Posted May 12, 2012 at 02:32 PM I'd say even with a motion pending, personal attacks should not be allowed.I'd say so too. And, had I parenthetically written "e.g." instead of "i.e.", I would have written "or" instead of "and"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.