Speaking in meetings: Is this a problem?

[BabbsJohnson]

In many meetings I have attended and spoken in debate in, the President seems to feel the need to rebut/respond to everything I say, and she does not do this to the other members.

I feel it is an attemtp to negate or invalidate what I say, since usually she is criticizing what I am saying by countering it with her own opinions. Is this proper?

 

Just to be clear: She is not correcting information that I am giving that is not true, or anything like that, she is responding directly to my comments right after I make each one, and basically telling me why I am wrong, in one way or another.

 

[Benjamin Geiger]

Let's set aside the question of her treating you differently from other members.

The person chairing a meeting, under most circumstances, should remain impartial, not taking either side in debate, and only voting when their vote would directly affect the outcome (to break a tie to cause a motion to pass, or to cause a tie to cause the motion to fail). The chair actively rebutting your statements in debate is improper unless she yields the chair. Pages 394-395 go into more detail.

[BabbsJohnson]

Does this apply to a board that is using rules for a small board, which does allow the chair person to participate in debate and vote?

I asked once before if the chair has to remain impartial even though they are participating in debate and voting,  but I’m not sure I got an answer I understood. I’m not sure where the division comes between demonstrating impartiality and active participation.

[Benjamin Geiger]

Small boards are why I said "under most circumstances"; they're one of the major exceptions. Under small board rules, the chair isn't required to remain impartial. Small board rules are on pages 487-488.

[BabbsJohnson]

Remaining impartial is one things, but to rebut directly to each thing I say, is that typical?

It seems peple should be able to speak, andnot have everything they say countered, as they say it, or be told why what they are saying is not important, as they say it, especially if germaine.

[Chris Harrison]

29 minutes ago, Nosey said:

Does this apply to a board that is using rules for a small board, which does allow the chair person to participate in debate and vote?

No. 

 

Quote

I asked once before if the chair has to remain impartial even though they are participating in debate and voting,  but I’m not sure I got an answer I understood. I’m not sure where the division comes between demonstrating impartiality and active participation.

I think the question is what does remaining impartial really require?  Does it mean putting on an official facade of having no opinion on a subject while presiding even though everyone and their brother knows which way she leans?  Or can that leaning be officially known but she is still expected to not allow her preferences to affect her rulings and how she treats those who don't agree with her?

Edited March 5, 2019 at 04:40 PM by Chris Harrison

[Benjamin Geiger]

13 minutes ago, Nosey said:

Remaining impartial is one things, but to rebut directly to each thing I say, is that typical?

It's not typical by any stretch. It's rude. But RONR doesn't prohibit it.

Have you talked to other members to see if they've noticed her behavior? Given enough support you may have options, ranging from censure up to removal of the chair.

[BabbsJohnson]

None of the other members know about RONR, and one flat out said he doesn’t want to know and doesn’t care.

Our property manager enables this by telling them that they can decide or not to use RONR, and also can cherry pick it as needed, even though our by-laws name RONR as that which shall govern all our corporate proceedings,, which cannot be amended without a vote from the entire membership.

[Dan Honemann]

Just now, Nosey said:

None of the other members know about RONR, and one flat out said he doesn’t want to know and doesn’t care.

Our property manager enables this by telling them that they can decide or not to use RONR, and also can cherry pick it as needed, even though our by-laws name RONR as that which shall govern all our corporate proceedings,, which cannot be amended without a vote from the entire membership.

But nothing in RONR prohibits the presiding officer at a meeting of a board using "small board" rules from participating in debate.

[BabbsJohnson]

15 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

But nothing in RONR prohibits the presiding officer at a meeting of a board using "small board" rules from participating in debate.

No, the small board rules are not the issue...the issue is the board currently thinks they don’t have to use RONR at all, if they just all agree not to, which seems to not be the case, considering how it’s worded in the by-laws.

[Dan Honemann]

2 minutes ago, Nosey said:

No, the small board rules are not the issue...the issue is the board currently thinks they don’t have to use RONR at all, if they just all agree not to, which seems to not be the case, considering how it’s worded in the by-laws.

Well, complaining about it here in this forum won't help.

[BabbsJohnson]

33 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, complaining about it here in this forum won't help.

I’m aware of ways to keep nudging it into play, even amongst the resistant, but how does one deal with flagrant disregard for the rules? Not just ignoring rules, but the by-laws?

[Josh Martin]

25 minutes ago, Nosey said:

I’m aware of ways to keep nudging it into play, even amongst the resistant, but how does one deal with flagrant disregard for the rules? Not just ignoring rules, but the by-laws?

It depends. How widespread is this “flagrant disregard” for the rules among the members of the board, and among the membership?

[BabbsJohnson]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

It depends. How widespread is this “flagrant disregard” for the rules among the members of the board, and among the membership?

among the board? It is at least one of five that says he has no care and doesn't want to learn or do anythig different. When I brought it up last time, the presdient said they thought we did "just fine" (to me meaning there are no improvements and new steps neeeded, but not sure). The other board members are in step with the president.

The membership are homeowners and they probably don't know much at all about any of out, or why it is used. Typically only 1-5 people come to a board meeting, and two of them are the same every time.

In the past, questionnairres have gone out for various subjects, and the responds was weak in numbers.

 

Edited to add: The property manager downplays the need for it, and states (I believe falsely) that we don't have to use them at all, if we don't want to, or that we can cherry pick and use only some things (like motions and voting) but not others (like following the rules of decorum and discipline).

Edited March 5, 2019 at 07:41 PM by Nosey
add detail

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Nosey said:

among the board? It is at least one of five that says he has no care and doesn't want to learn or do anythig different. When I brought it up last time, the presdient said they thought we did "just fine" (to me meaning there are no improvements and new steps neeeded, but not sure). The other board members are in step with the president.

The membership are homeowners and they probably don't know much at all about any of out, or why it is used. Typically only 1-5 people come to a board meeting, and two of them are the same every time.

In the past, questionnairres have gone out for various subjects, and the responds was weak in numbers.

 

Edited to add: The property manager downplays the need for it, and states (I believe falsely) that we don't have to use them at all, if we don't want to, or that we can cherry pick and use only some things (like motions and voting) but not others (like following the rules of decorum and discipline).

I say again, complaining about this sort of thing here in this forum won't help.

[Dan Honemann]

20 hours ago, Nosey said:

Remaining impartial is one things, but to rebut directly to each thing I say, is that typical?

It seems peple should be able to speak, andnot have everything they say countered, as they say it, or be told why what they are saying is not important, as they say it, especially if germaine.

If by this you mean that the chair is interrupting you as you speak in order to counter what you are saying, then this behavior is not at all in order, and should not be tolerated even in small boards. If other members don't seem to be bothered by it, however, there may be very little that you can do about it as a practical matter.

[BabbsJohnson]

22 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If by this you mean that the chair is interrupting you as you speak in order to counter what you are saying, then this behavior is not at all in order, and should not be tolerated even in small boards. If other members don't seem to be bothered by it, however, there may be very little that you can do about it as a practical matter.

Yes, interrupting and making short comments about what I’m saying, as I say it, also attempting to finish my sentences for me at times, so she can seguay into taking over talking, usually starting off with “the problem I have with that, is...”

and then tries to negate the point I was trying to make, usually with nothing but opinions.

 

 

Edited March 7, 2019 at 11:48 AM by Nosey
generalizing the question

[Joshua Katz]

She's not allowed to do that. Often, people know they're not allowed to interrupt speakers but do it anyway. Other times, they think they are allowed because, hey, I'm the chair. If it's the former, I'm not sure what we can say that we haven't said. If the latter, a gentle correction is in order - which, in any case, will tell you which it is.

[BabbsJohnson]

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

She's not allowed to do that. Often, people know they're not allowed to interrupt speakers but do it anyway. Other times, they think they are allowed because, hey, I'm the chair. If it's the former, I'm not sure what we can say that we haven't said. If the latter, a gentle correction is in order - which, in any case, will tell you which it is.

Thank you. I’m not sure how far it will get me.  I have complaints about her and she has flatly plainly said that she does not care.

[jstackpo]

22 minutes ago, Nosey said:

Thank you. I’m not sure how far it will get me.  I have complaints about her and she has flatly plainly said that she does not care.

Time for a new chair!

You can remove her from presiding for  one meeting by a 2/3 vote  at that meeting to suspend the rules.  The vice-chair will then take the job.  RONR, page 651ff.

[Chris Harrison]

57 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

Time for a new chair!

You can remove her from presiding for  one meeting by a 2/3 vote  at that meeting to suspend the rules.  The vice-chair will then take the job.  RONR, page 651ff.

If only it were that simple . 

From the four or five threads Nosey has started it sounds like the Board is a vast majority of the problem and he or she is trying to sail against hurricane force winds here.  Unfortunately RONR is not going to be of much use when most of the Board aren't willing to follow their own parliamentary authority.  I'm still of the opinion that Nosey's best course of action might be to look into legal options for compelling the Board to follow their own rules (if I remember correctly this is an HOA so there are probably laws on the books that can aid in wrangling a rogue Board).

[BabbsJohnson]

Just now, Chris Harrison said:

If only it were that simple . 

From the four or five threads Nosey has started it sounds like the Board is a vast majority of the problem and he or she is trying to sail against hurricane force winds here.  Unfortunately RONR is not going to be of much use when most of the Board aren't willing to follow their own parliamentary authority.  I'm still of the opinion that Nosey's best course of action might be to look into legal options for compelling the Board to follow their own rules (if I remember correctly this is an HOA so there are probably laws on the books that can aid in wrangling a rogue Board).

I think you may be right about that, the legal council part.

[Drake Savory]

IF the chair participates in debate, they are limited to speaking twice only.  We had a member that did the same thing the Chair in the OP did and the Chair admonished the member repeatedly but to no effect.  One meeting when that member made a third comment I raised the Point of Order that they had spoken twice and were thus barred from speaking anymore to the question.   

[George Mervosh]

10 minutes ago, Drake Savory said:

IF the chair participates in debate, they are limited to speaking twice only.  We had a member that did the same thing the Chair in the OP did and the Chair admonished the member repeatedly but to no effect.  One meeting when that member made a third comment I raised the Point of Order that they had spoken twice and were thus barred from speaking anymore to the question.   

But I think Nosey has made clear that they are using the procedures for small boards. 

[BabbsJohnson]

9 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

But I think Nosey has made clear that they are using the procedures for small boards. 

With the exception of requiring a second, which we have done for several years now.

Edited March 7, 2019 at 07:45 PM by Nosey
typo