Guest Dusty Posted October 6, 2012 at 03:50 AM Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 at 03:50 AM I sit on two boards (newly appointed to both). Both boards have a curious and similar problem: both have non-members sitting with the members, not in the gallery, and these individuals "gab" during the meeting, cut-off members, one has twice directed the members to do an e-mail vote (these are public/government boards), both have effectively tried (successfully) to preside over the meeting.Needless to say, both board chairs are derelict in their duties, and the members of both boards don't recognize, or care, or have the willingness to speak up.I am new to both boards, and as such have been attempting to get a feel for things, including member preferences, knowledge, and intentions.I am reluctant to call out the chairs and/or the non-members usurping authority without knowing there will be some support.Here is the question:What manner would one recommend to address the non-members. I wish them to stop interrupting/controlling the meetings, as well as to take their place in the gallery along with other non-members.A working relationship with these non-members must be maintained. One is the executive counterpart to the board; the other board has "staff" that "invades" the board--anywhere from 3-8 staffers compared to an approximate 9 member board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted October 6, 2012 at 07:13 AM Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 at 07:13 AM Technically, these non-members can be simply told to keep their peace; as non-members they have no rights whatsoever.Politically, you have a problem that RONR doesn't address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnR Posted October 6, 2012 at 03:34 PM Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 at 03:34 PM What manner would one recommend to address the non-members. I wish them to stop interrupting/controlling the meetings, as well as to take their place in the gallery along with other non-members.It would be in order to raise a question of privilege of the assembly as a whole when disturbance occurs. You could also move to go into executive session (unless other rules or laws prohibit it), or you could offer a main motion to establish a rule that all nonmembers must be seated in the gallery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 6, 2012 at 04:01 PM Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 at 04:01 PM .....both board chairs are derelict in their duties...... the members of both boards don't recognize, or care, or have the willingness to speak up.Here are your problems. The non-member(s) issue is a symptom that will continue in some fashion until the real problem(s) are addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 6, 2012 at 11:08 PM Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 at 11:08 PM On the other hand, whenever the rules are violated, members can and should raise a point of order, pointing out the violation.It may seem fruitless to try, but if you don't, then you're not really being part of the solution. I'm not saying it's profitable to beat your head against a brick wall, but sometimes it is the case that the other members aren't apathetic, they just don't know the rules, or that there's any remedy for the way things are. Sometimes all it takes is one person to speak up. You might find yourself with more support than you think.And if not, well at least you tried. And can try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnR Posted October 6, 2012 at 11:26 PM Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 at 11:26 PM Right on, Gary. We can throw up our hands or we can use the tools that procedure gives us to promote fair and effective meetings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dusty Posted October 11, 2012 at 07:30 PM Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 at 07:30 PM Thank you all for your responses. They are all helpful. I have found, by speaking with the respective board members privately, that many do not like the way things are, but do not know better or how to address it or are too inhibited--due to political fall-out--to address the issues. Unfortunately, there are members that are satisfied with the way things are--for political reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 11, 2012 at 08:07 PM Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 at 08:07 PM I have found, by speaking with the respective board members privately, that many do not like the way things are......Then they should do something about that.... but [they] do not know better or how to address it...That can be fixed..... or are too inhibited--due to political fall-out--to address the issues.Well, now ya got a problem. But once they've "had enough", that can change too. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 22, 2012 at 03:10 AM Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 at 03:10 AM ...many do not like the way things are, but do not know better or how to address it or are too inhibited--due to political fall-out--to address the issues."If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning." --Frederick Douglass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.