Shaking My Head

[AFS1970]

Not sure if it is OK to post a non-question here but I found this sadly funny.

As I have posted before I recently joined a new Fire Department, we are very far from following RONR, but have a very detailed By-Laws and an additional Rules Manual. We have a standing agenda item called Good & Welfare. This has the potential to become a gripe session as it allows for anyone to bring up anything they think effects the morale or operation of the department. This is where a good President must be attentive, sadly we do not have one of those. So a member gets up to talk, most of what he said agreed with a previous report of the Chief, then he said something that got the Chief upset and the Chief stood up walked over to the member and started yelling at him and pointing in his face. Lots of members were yelling )to be heard over the Chief) that the president should do something. Finally I was able to be heard and I called out :point of order" my intention was to ask the president if the first member still had the floor. However I don't think the president knew what a point of order was, so he just banged his gavel and yelled out "order, order, order". To be fair he accomplished the same thing but I can't help but laugh that.

There were other problems but not as funny as this misunderstanding?

[Joshua Katz]

This is a pretty standard item for meetings, but, well, that's not how it's supposed to work.  

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

15 hours ago, AFS1970 said:

Finally I was able to be heard and I called out :point of order" my intention was to ask the president if the first member still had the floor. However I don't think the president knew what a point of order was, so he just banged his gavel and yelled out "order, order, order". To be fair he accomplished the same thing but I can't help but laugh that.

Not so far from proper procedure as you may think. Any member may call another misbehaving member to order. Of course, it is done obliquely by addressing the chair: "Mr. President, I call the Chief to order."

[J. J.]

I know of one meeting, prior to being hired by the group that broke into a near riot and ended about 10 minutes into the meeting. 

[AFS1970]

Our president, I think, is trying to do the job, however he is ill equipped for the position. He has no idea of procedure and has a bit of a language barrier. It is often uncomfortable to listen to him talk or read anything lengthy. Meetings quickly get away from him. Many voted for him as the lesser of two evils, knowing he was filling an unexpired term. He won in a landslide. Still there are a couple of senior members who try to help him get through meetings. 

His other great quote from the meeting was "If you haven't, you can't" This was a complete sentence (to him) and a statement of policy, despite lacking any actual subject. 

The Chief is just a guy who yells a lot and tends to take personal offense at anyone who questions him. However there is a time and place for everything and the meeting is not it. 

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, AFS1970 said:

His other great quote from the meeting was "If you haven't, you can't" This was a complete sentence (to him) and a statement of policy, despite lacking any actual subject. 

 

It is a sentence, and "you" is the subject.

1 hour ago, AFS1970 said:

The Chief is just a guy who yells a lot and tends to take personal offense at anyone who questions him. However there is a time and place for everything and the meeting is not it. 

This is a problem facing many volunteer fire departments where officers are elected or chosen by the membership in some way.  I tend to think, after 10 years in emergency services, that volunteer services need to fade away, with regionalization of resources where needed.  However, even lacking that, I think municipalities should give serious consideration, at the least, to a professional chief - or even a chief chosen by the government, not the membership, preferably from the outside.

[Benjamin Geiger]

2 hours ago, AFS1970 said:

His other great quote from the meeting was "If you haven't, you can't" This was a complete sentence (to him) and a statement of policy, despite lacking any actual subject. 

It's a full sentence, with a subject (as Joshua Katz has already pointed out). Presumably the object (the thing you haven't done and can't do) is implied in context.

[AFS1970]

On ‎1‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 11:17 AM, Joshua Katz said:

This is a problem facing many volunteer fire departments where officers are elected or chosen by the membership in some way.  I tend to think, after 10 years in emergency services, that volunteer services need to fade away, with regionalization of resources where needed.  However, even lacking that, I think municipalities should give serious consideration, at the least, to a professional chief - or even a chief chosen by the government, not the membership, preferably from the outside.

My city has both career and volunteer fire departments. Trust me I have met just as many career Chiefs who are selected by the government who manage by yelling. The problem with the selection process is not who makes the choice it is the absence of any real criteria. Oddly enough, my new department is one that has some pretty tight requirements for Chief, and the city is trying to push for more (although the reasoning is dubious). The real problem is a lack of candidates that meet the criteria. 

As for meeting decorum, I have noticed over the years, in fire departments and other organizations that there is a growing lack of knowledge about procedure and decorum. The newest generations don't seem to understand why rules are in place but the older generations don't seem to ever explain the rules or why they exist.

[Joshua Katz]

33 minutes ago, AFS1970 said:

My city has both career and volunteer fire departments. Trust me I have met just as many career Chiefs who are selected by the government who manage by yelling. The problem with the selection process is not who makes the choice it is the absence of any real criteria. Oddly enough, my new department is one that has some pretty tight requirements for Chief, and the city is trying to push for more (although the reasoning is dubious). The real problem is a lack of candidates that meet the criteria. 

As for meeting decorum, I have noticed over the years, in fire departments and other organizations that there is a growing lack of knowledge about procedure and decorum. The newest generations don't seem to understand why rules are in place but the older generations don't seem to ever explain the rules or why they exist.

True enough.  I once arrived on a scene (as a paramedic, in a city with a career department) where a battalion chief was yelling about taking a door off.  I asked if anyone had tried the other door, was ignored, and walked over and opened it.  He just continued yelling.  Of course, if you lack candidates who meet your criteria, the solution is to raise the salary, but that may not be feasible.

I have noticed the opposite about decorum, to some degree.  At least where I've been, there's the "old-timers" who have their ways of doing things, which mostly involve telling the young people they don't know what they're talking about.  I've seen young people turn to parliamentary procedure to shut up the old-timers and actually get ideas considered.

[AFS1970]

Well the current salary is zero, so I suppose there could always be a raise. However the requirements that are most problematic can not be solved with money. These are years in the department, having held certain ranks previously, and a residency requirement. No real way to fix these other than to amend them, and that has the potential to bring about other problems.