Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Board member attacks


Guest Confused

Recommended Posts

Are personal attacks only against the rules during debate, or at any time during a meeting?

I was basically told by a board member tonight that they will hold a grudge against me until they feel satisfied that I have redeemed myself of the crime of having a citical view of the board, and expressing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not classify holding a grudge as a personal attack. Bringing it up during a meeting is outside decorum and should not be done. But why do I think that there is a lot more to the story.

I believe I have a real account on here. I could tell you as much of my side if you want to weigh in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not classify holding a grudge as a personal attack. Bringing it up during a meeting is outside decorum and should not be done. But why do I think that there is a lot more to the story.

What about to the effect of them attempting to invalidate every bit of information you bring to the meeting claiming you are not qualified to deliver such information, yet other members are not given this treatment when they bring information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are personal attacks only against the rules during debate, or at any time during a meeting?

 

 

Yes, that's completely improper.

 

I was basically told by a board member tonight that they will hold a grudge against me until they feel satisfied that I have redeemed myself of the crime of having a citical view of the board, and expressing it.

 

Personal attacks in a meeting are off limits, period.

 

 

What about to the effect of them attempting to invalidate every bit of information you bring to the meeting claiming you are not qualified to deliver such information, yet other members are not given this treatment when they bring information?

 

That's a bit different.  They can attack the information itself, but not you.

 

Are you even a member of this board?  Not that it matters when it comes to the personal attack issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about to the effect of them attempting to invalidate every bit of information you bring to the meeting claiming you are not qualified to deliver such information, yet other members are not given this treatment when they bring information?

 

Maybe you're not qualified and the other members are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you're not qualified and the other members are.

Even if that were true I would think the member making that assertion needs to be careful in how he says it.  Saying "you don't know what you are talking about" runs a much greater risk of running afoul of violating decorum than saying "I [insert qualifications here] so I know what I am talking about."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if that were true I would think the member making that assertion needs to be careful in how he says it. Saying "you don't know what you are talking about" runs a much greater risk of running afoul of violating decorum than saying "I [insert qualifications here] so I know what I am talking about."

The member simply shouldn't say it at all, since it is not germane to the discussion. If the member wishes to politely suggest that the information may be mistaken, he is free to do so, but whether the speaker is "qualified" to provide the information (whatever that is supposed to mean) is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The member simply shouldn't say it at all, since it is not germane to the discussion. If the member wishes to politely suggest that the information may be mistaken, he is free to do so, but whether the speaker is "qualified" to provide the information (whatever that is supposed to mean) is irrelevant.

If the information is true, and the speaker is discriminated against by another member by saying they'd rather trust an expert on the opinion, and that the speaker is not an expert, what do you think of that. Does one have to be an 'expert' to convey true information in a meeting? It is rather humilating to be knocked down over and over in this way when the other members are not critisized in this fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being told that you are "not qualified" or "not an expert" is a form of a very familiar logical fallacy called the "argumentum ad hominem" fallacy.  It is a sneaky way to "win" arguments, by attacking the person doing the debating (you) rather than responding to the actual points of the debate (usually because the other guy doesn't have a good answer to your points).   Unfortunately it does work (some of the time, anyway).

 

You don't have to have a PhD in Meteorology to note that it's raining out even though the forecast was for "sunny".

 

So don't let yourself get all wrapped in the "you are no expert" debate, the other guy isn't really debating at all; just remind the other guy what your point was and ask him to stick to the topic, not the person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the information is true, and the speaker is discriminated against by another member by saying they'd rather trust an expert on the opinion, and that the speaker is not an expert, what do you think of that. Does one have to be an 'expert' to convey true information in a meeting? It is rather humilating to be knocked down over and over in this way when the other members are not critisized in this fashion.

 

No, one does not have to be an "expert" to convey true information in a meeting. Once again, any details about the speaker are irrelevant. It is the motion, not the members, which are the subject of debate. The member should be called to order and told to stick to the subject at hand.

 

So don't let yourself get all wrapped in the "you are no expert" debate, the other guy isn't really debating at all; just remind the other guy what your point was and ask him to stick to the topic, not the person. 

 

Rather, he should inform the chair that members should stick to the topic, through a Point of Order. It is not proper to address another member directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, one does not have to be an "expert" to convey true information in a meeting. Once again, any details about the speaker are irrelevant. It is the motion, not the members, which are the subject of debate. The member should be called to order and told to stick to the subject at hand.

 

Suppose the pending motion is to spend money on some political advertising.

Member A speaks in favor of the motion and says, "This spending is very appropriate, and it will in no way jeopardize our corporation's tax-exempt status."

Member B speaks next and says, "I disagree with the member who just spoke, and I believe he is mistaken as to the likely repercussions of this spending. In fact, my 20 years as a tax attorney specializing in state and federal not-for-profit legal issues tells me that this spending is sure to cause us trouble if the government is informed about it."

Do you think that member B's speech violated the rules of debate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose the pending motion is to spend money on some political advertising.

Member A speaks in favor of the motion and says, "This spending is very appropriate, and it will in no way jeopardize our corporation's tax-exempt status."

Member B speaks next and says, "I disagree with the member who just spoke, and I believe he is mistaken as to the likely repercussions of this spending. In fact, my 20 years as a tax attorney specializing in state and federal not-for-profit legal issues tells me that this spending is sure to cause us trouble if the government is informed about it."

Do you think that member B's speech violated the rules of debate?

Not at all. Member B respectfully disagreed with the member who just spoke, noted that he believed the member was mistaken, suggested an alternative interpretation, and pointed out his own experience with the issue, rather than questioning the experience of the other speaker. This seems very different from what the original poster is suggesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. Member B respectfully disagreed with the member who just spoke, noted that he believed the member was mistaken, suggested an alternative interpretation, and pointed out his own experience with the issue, rather than questioning the experience of the other speaker. This seems very different from what the original poster is suggesting.

 

But it seems a lot like what Chris H suggested earlier, which I thought you were disagreeing with. So you agree that it's OK for a speaker to mention his own qualifications, but you're saying that he can't question the qualifications of another?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it seems a lot like what Chris H suggested earlier, which I thought you were disagreeing with. So you agree that it's OK for a speaker to mention his own qualifications, but you're saying that he can't question the qualifications of another?

Interesting question.  I suppose he could ask, could he not, in the way of a "request for information" for the other member's qualifications?  Would something along these lines be acceptable:  "Mr Chairman, in the way of a request for information, I wonder if the member who just spoke in favor of the motion for the political advertising would be so kind as to tell us what his education and experience are in the area of tax law for non profit entities?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's back to an ad hominem argument.  It is an insidious one that is always tempting to use.

 

If I, the expert, can (from my expertise) quote chapter and verse of the legal code pertaining to the question, and my opponent (in the debate) cannot, and his (only) response is to ask after my qualifications to do so, rather than countering my argument with other chapters and verses (or case law, or something), he just lost the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it seems a lot like what Chris H suggested earlier, which I thought you were disagreeing with. So you agree that it's OK for a speaker to mention his own qualifications, but you're saying that he can't question the qualifications of another?

 

Yes.

 

Interesting question.  I suppose he could ask, could he not, in the way of a "request for information" for the other member's qualifications?  Would something along these lines be acceptable:  "Mr Chairman, in the way of a request for information, I wonder if the member who just spoke in favor of the motion for the political advertising would be so kind as to tell us what his education and experience are in the area of tax law for non profit entities?"

 

Request for Information may be the best way to handle it, if it becomes necessary to question a speaker's qualifications. Generally speaking, I don't think it is necessary. I concur with Dr. Stackpole that the preferable course of action is to counter the member's arguments in debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

A Request for Information may be the best way to handle it, if it becomes necessary to question a speaker's qualifications. Generally speaking, I don't think it is necessary. I concur with Dr. Stackpole that the preferable course of action is to counter the member's arguments in debate.

What if the speaker is simply bringing verifyable facts to the debate from a reputable source (to support or speak against or for a thing in debate) and anther person goes about claiming that because the person bringing those facts is not as knowledgable or accredited as the person who wrote and published the facts at the source, that not only the facts, but the person (and their argument) should be disregarded.

Is that considered 'attacking the person' rather than 'attacking the information/arguement'?

And what if the person doing the attacking says they do not personally have time to do such research (to verify that the facts the other person is bringing to the debate are correct) that those facts should be disregarded and/or simply seen as 'an opinion' instead of a fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the speaker is simply bringing verifyable facts to the debate from a reputable source (to support or speak against or for a thing in debate) and anther person goes about claiming that because the person bringing those facts is not as knowledgable or accredited as the person who wrote and published the facts at the source, that not only the facts, but the person (and their argument) should be disregarded.

Is that considered 'attacking the person' rather than 'attacking the information/arguement'?

And what if the person doing the attacking says they do not personally have time to do such research (to verify that the facts the other person is bringing to the debate are correct) that those facts should be disregarded and/or simply seen as 'an opinion' instead of a fact?

Yes, my opinion remains that in the situation you describe, the member questioning the speaker is violating the rules of germaneness and decorum, and he should be called to order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, my opinion remains that in the situation you describe, the member questioning the speaker is violating the rules of germaneness and decorum, and he should be called to order.

Any suggestions as to how to transfer the information to a resistent group of what exactly consitutes a personal attack and why it is not ok to use them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any suggestions as to how to transfer the information to a resistent group of what exactly consitutes a personal attack and why it is not ok to use them?

 

I usually just explain that the subject before the assembly is the motion, not the members, and I'm not questioned further on this. I'd probably be more than a little concerned if I was. Most people accept that not personally attacking other members is a matter of common courtesy, so I'm not really sure what to say to people who do not accept that premise.

 

I suppose there might be some confusion as to what exactly constitutes a personal attack. You can find what RONR has to say on this subject on pgs. 43 and 392, and pg. 31 of RONR In Brief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...