PowerPoints during meeting

[grayduck]

We recently had a very heated meeting during which a member who favored one side was constantly displaying (front left) different PowerPoint slides that included screenshots of forum posts, charts & data analysis to support the opposing view, information that conflicted with what speakers were saying, etc. I don't know why our Chair allowed this, but I fear this member may try to do the same at our next meeting. It was obviously just plain wrong and unfair, but how can I stop this procedurally when our Chair already let it slip by once? I will also be leading one section of the meeting and I fear they may try to do the same thing for me.

 

In his defense, he was obviously very overwhelmed by their ferocity, viciousness, and obsessive interruptions with Point of Orders. How can we stop those as well? One woman was using PoOs like they were her catchphrase! 

[Gödel Fan]

Members, in general, have the right to raise points of order.  Members, in general (unless you have bylaws or rules of order to the contrary) do not have the right to display PowerPoint slides while others are speaking.  While this particular behavior is not discussed in RONR, it seems to be a breach of decorum in many ways, including the fact that it is, arguably at least, interrupting a speaker, which is only permitted for a few reasons (and, needless to say, displaying PowerPoint slides isn't one of them.)  If a person is, as I'm picturing from your post, using a remote control device to display slides contradicting speakers while they have the floor, and the Chair is not stopping them, you should raise a point of order.  If you are "leading" (I assume Chairing) a portion of the meeting, and this happens, you should simply say "members will stop displaying PowerPoint slides while others have the floor."  If the behavior continues, you should call the member to order, and, if they still continue, instruct the Secretary to record the name of the member, the behavior, how many times they have been told to stop, and that the Chair has called them to order - you can then, if it still continues, name the offender, which is the start of a disciplinary procedure.

 

In fact, it's likely that a member doesn't even have the right to display slides while they have the floor, although it would be unusual for anyone to complain (similar, I think, to reading papers - although my betters may well correct me here.)

 

As to the woman whose catchphrase is point of order - has someone else, or some other group of people, made a catchphrase of violating the rules of order, in which case she has a perfectly good catchphrase?  Part of the job of the chair is protecting the assembly from obviously dilatory efforts, but I'd urge great caution in finding points of order dilatory.  If I'm chairing, I could picture calling a point of order dilatory if, for instance, it has been raised, I have found it not well-taken, my decision has been sustained on appeal, and it is then made again without any change in circumstances, or later in substantially the same circumstances (although in the latter case, it would have to be very substantially the same, and have happened multiple times.)  I suppose that's a long way of saying you really shouldn't be stopping people from making points of order the vast majority of the time.  

 

I have nothing to say about ferocity, viciousness, or obsessiveness, except that I find the first two to be pleasant qualities, and the last to be a pleasant quality when it comes to parliamentary procedure.

[Gödel Fan]

Come to think of it, an easier way to prevent this would be to not have a projector, or to turn it off, or to take the remote control away from this person.

[grayduck]

Thank you for your quite satisfying answer, although I'm not sure you'd be too happy if ferocity and viciousness were directed to you.  

 

He procured the projector himself from the facility where we were having the meeting and put it on the floor. 

[Gödel Fan]

Maybe unplug it?

[grayduck]

Hahaha. That would cause quite a stir from the heated opposition. I'll use your earlier excellent suggestions.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Hahaha. That would cause quite a stir from the heated opposition. I'll use your earlier excellent suggestions.

 

This might not be so outlandish.  (Although the chair's requiring the member to unplug or turn off his own paraphernalia might be less conducive to mayhem.)  Be mindful of the prohibition on doing things that "disturb the assembly [emphasis RONR's] (p. 394)"; and it is fundamental that the society controls its hall (p. 644).  Just as an assembly can prohibit the use of recording devices (or allow them), it can debar a member from playing with his toys to the distraction of the membership.

 

On another tack.  Unlike Mr. Godephian (I took a shine to his, or maybe her, previous spelling -- it would be nice if I remembered what it was), I bet the woman who used as a catchphrase "point of order" was actually misusing it.  More likely than not, she leapt to her feat, proclaimed "Point of Order, M'Lord!" and proceeded to whatever rant was in her queue at the time.  In such a case, when recognizing the member who rises to the point, I think the chair should say, "-A point of order calls attention to a violation of the rules that is happening:  please state what rule you say is being violated.-" This is not Hoyle-Robert (or Robert-Hoyle, I forget how to spell it), but I'll stand by it (p. 454, line 34 - 455, l. 1, first word; p. 456. l. 14-15.  Also I feel I remember reading words like "There's no replacing common sense," but I might be remembering it from an earlier edition, or The Avengers movie).

 

(-- No, no. I haven't seen The Avengers movie.  It must be from The Walking Dead, or maybe Anthony Trollope.)

[grayduck]

Nancy, your interpretation of what the woman does is exactly correct. Maybe I shouldn't have described her usage as a "catchphrase", but I was already planning on, at the beginning of my section, making a couple comments which would include the purpose and usage of "point of order". Nip it in the bud before it happens again! Now I will simply memorise your suggested response and follow up with those line references.

[Gödel Fan]

The previous spelling was Godelfan, with no umlatte and no space.  The intent was the same.

 

Of course, I agree that if a person rises to a point of order, and then doesn't state one, debates, etc., that is not permissible.  I think I used precisely the words you indicated when a member tried this last weekend, although I followed it up with "what do you think was done wrong?" when no answer was forthcoming.

 

Just as a point of information, I have seen this sort of abuse, but I have also seen the sort of abuse where the Chair prevents points of order from being raised.  (See what I did there?)

[grayduck]

Thanks Godelfan. You're comments were perfect and nuanced and I appreciated that. You guys have given me great help. I hope I can follow your wise advice, although, truth be told, this woman is veerrryyy difficult. I'll do my best.

[Guest Nancy N.]

... Just as a point of information, ...

 

So (p. 294), what information are you asking for?

 

The previous spelling was Godelfan, with no umlatte and no space.  The intent was the same.

 

Of course, I agree that if a person rises to a point of order, and then doesn't state one, debates, etc., that is not permissible.  I think I used precisely the words you indicated when a member tried this last weekend, although I followed it up with "what do you think was done wrong?" when no answer was forthcoming.

 

Just as a point of information, I have seen this sort of abuse, but I have also seen the sort of abuse where the Chair prevents points of order from being raised.  (See what I did there?)

 

I, at least, probably don't.  What did you do there?

[Gödel Fan]

I misused point of information, just as you concluded point of order was being misused.

[Guest Guest]

I misused point of information, just as you concluded point of order was being misused.

 

Eeeks.  If it was a snake it woulda bit me.  (But I am a slow and ponderous thinker, of dour and lugubrious mien.)

[Guest Nancy N.]

Eeeks.  If it was a snake it woulda bit me.  (But I am a slow and ponderous thinker, of dour and lugubrious mien.)

 

(Nuts.  That was me.)

[Guest Nancy N.]

...she leapt to her feat...

 

(Nobody liked this one?  I was particularly tickled when it occurred to me.  Snif sob.)

[grayduck]

"lept to her feet" was exactly what she did... numerous times! She also frequently roared at the secretary to make sure her words were minuted! She and others turned what was normally a peaceful 1-hour meeting into a 4-hour marathon.

 

If you remember some of my other posts, they (about eight people) were upset by the facts that three of "their" side lost in the election (one by 9, others by 20 and 42 out of 200 votes), the treasurer of the opposing side was a poor accountant (he is), and another exec member hadn't fully informed "their" side of a meeting with the government. Ugly, ugly, ugly. I denied the motion nullify the election and have a recall (not enough continuous breaches -- four people with computer problems they blamed on the treasurer) and will allow the vote to remove the treasurer (even though I'm allowing him to add a 100-word defense to his accusations at the end of the motion).

 

The next meeting where they will rant and rave at all of this will be on the 16th of this month.

[Gary Novosielski]

Roaring at the Secretary is not in order. And her "words" of debate do not belong in the minutes in any case, whether they were roared or whispered.

Minutes do not contain discussion. They are a record of what was done, not what was said.