Q&A With the Board

[BryanSullo]

I'm the moderator for a Congregational church. Recently, the Board came to me, asking about a Q&A session where the Board would make a joint presentation to the whole assembly, with all Board members seated up front, and then field questions from the assembly. We did this once, and they want to make this a regular thing. Having had a chance to think about it more, I came back to them with the following statement. Anyone care to weigh in on the validity of my statement, or the subject in general?

2. The business meeting is run by the members. Having the entire leadership team presenting to the assembly makes it seem like an extension of the Joint Board meeting; It takes away the members' sense of empowerment and destroys the engagement mentality we're trying so hard to foster.

3. One of the fundamental principles of parliamentary procedure is that only one person has the floor at any one time. In addition to helping maintain order, this has some pretty significant reasoning behind it: In an assembly, each person's opinion, just like each person's vote, has equal merit. Allowing a group to take the floor could multiply the perceived merit of that group's opinions. On the other hand, it could reduce the perceived merit of the opinions of members of that group. Either way, it sets up an "us vs. them" situation that is totally incompatible with the aims of parliamentary law.

4. I've never felt the need to enforce this, because it rarely becomes a problem, but members who have the floor are supposed to address the presiding officer only, and not address other members directly. Again, there's reasoning behind this. Members addressing one another are now engaged in their own discussion, and it is no longer a group debate, this leads to others feeling disenfranchised and, if this goes too far, can lead to arguments, hurt feelings, and members "ganging up" on other members. I say I don't enforce this, because there's never been a need, but to participate in an intentional violation of this principle by having a direct Q&A at every meeting would be farther than I'm willing to go as moderator.

(I didn't forget item #1. It was just irrelevant to this discussion.)

[Guest Edgar]

Why have this Q&A session take place at a meeting (of either the board or the congregation) at all, since (I'm assuming) no business will actually be transacted. Why not just get together and let the members of the congregation ask questions of members of the board? You can still be the "moderator" and make sure things go smoothly but you can relax the rules as appropriate. One would hope people would behave themselves without reference to The Right Book (though perhaps with some reminders from The Good Book).

[BryanSullo]

I think the timing of doing this during a business meeting is merely for sake of convenience. I don't have any problem if they wanted to do it on a Sunday morning, after church, or whenever. It just seems that doing this during a business meeting flies in the face of parliamentary law. Am I being too pedantic?

[Bruce Lages]

Even with the consideration of convenience, it doesn't seem necessary to have your Q&A session during a business meeting. If it is really to be a pure Q&A session with no business transacted as a direct result, why not hold it just before or just after your business meeting?

[BryanSullo]

I agree there are better ways to handle it, but am I right in saying it is wrong?

[David A Foulkes]

I agree there are better ways to handle it, but am I right in saying it is wrong?

I'm not sure about "wrong", just that there are several ways for it to be handled "better" than holding the Q&A during the meeting.

Now, let's rough-guess our way through this. If the business meeting itself would be expected to take an hour, and the Q&A is expected to take 30 minutes, than you're looking at an hour and a half for the entire gathering. You could:

1. Take a recess mid-meeting for 30 minutes for the Q&A, say, before New Business
   
2. Have the Q&A first, then call the meeting to order, allowing any assembly members, who didn't want to stick around, to leave
   
3. Have the meeting first, allowing any assembly members to take a lunch break, or even arrive/return later for the Q&A
   

The benefit of 2 over 1 (and 1 over 3) is that anything that might come out of the Q&A could possibly be addressed at the meeting.

Either way, if you're going to spend 90 minutes (or whatever time frame you'd actually expect) on all this, would it matter in which order it all happened? No, it wouldn't, but why not make it easy on yourself. Keep the Q&A out of the meeting.

[Guest Edgar]

I agree there are better ways to handle it, but am I right in saying it is wrong?

If you're seeking a moral judgement you're in the wrong place.

[BryanSullo]

Maybe I'm being too philosophical. Let me make my question more practical:

Is there any provision in RONR that allows for this type of group presentation/discussion? Conversely, is there any provision that prohibits it?

[sMargaret]

What is the purpose of having this Q&A session with the board? Is this about ongoing business, that the membership does not feel informed about? Is it about a particular issue that there is concern about? Should the board improve the current communication flow from the decisions at meetings to the general population? Is the board making a lot of decisions behind closed doors?

Having a Q&A session is one possible answer to a concern. As you've noted, having this sort of Q&A session is not compatible with a general meeting. Perhaps looking at the root causes of the request is one way to find a better solution.

I will also note that the board does not exist as "the board" at a general meeting, only at a board meeting.

Another note - my local school board has a question session ahead of each of their public board meetings, where anyone can book a time to address the board on an issue for 5 minutes. There aren't any answers typically provided, but questions are allowed.

[Guest Edgar]

Is there any provision in RONR that allows for this type of group presentation/discussion?

Suspend the rules (pp.260-267).

[BryanSullo]

Thank you, Margaret and Edgar. Those are exactly the types of answers I was looking for.