Chair & “personality”

[BabbsJohnson]

From watching  city council or other kinds of board meetings that demonstrate a chair person in action, it seems like that position and the duties associated with it are very neutral and procedural, and do not typically have “personality” injected into them.

In a situation where the chair in injects a lot of personality into the role, is it appropriate to remind them that it is a neutral role? 

In a situation where they have been doing this for a long time, how might one approach it?

[Guest Zev]

What do you mean by "personality"?

[BabbsJohnson]

52 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

What do you mean by "personality"?

Calling people by their first names, speaking back to those in debate as though they and answering them directly, like a conversation, going back and forth with other members as they speak until they have “won” the exchange, after someone has spoken, paraphrasing their argument and then saying they disagree with it, having ongoing conversation with the management, directing management independently of board voted-upon action, directing vendors outside of board voted-upon action, interjecting their opinion anywhere they wish...

 

basically not keeping to the “chairperson” script, if one were to strip it down to its basics.

[jstackpo]

In "small boards" (the usual city council would qualify, I'd think) full participation - entering into debate, &c, exercising "personality"  in your terms - is not improper, in meetings.  Page 487ff.

However, acting outside of council authorization ("directing management independently of board voted-upon action, directing vendors outside of board voted-upon action") is not proper at all, and may raise legal questions.

In larger assemblies, the chair should remain impartial, stay above the fray, and keep his cool (and mouth shut).

 

Edited May 18, 2019 at 10:48 AM by jstackpo
clarification of "not" phrase

[Richard Brown]

10 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

From watching  city council or other kinds of board meetings that demonstrate a chair person in action, it seems like that position and the duties associated with it are very neutral and procedural, and do not typically have “personality” injected into them.

In a situation where the chair in injects a lot of personality into the role, is it appropriate to remind them that it is a neutral role? 

In a situation where they have been doing this for a long time, how might one approach it?

There is a very recent thread by member"Nosey", started just a few days ago, that  asks similar questions. You might find the discussion in let thread useful. Although no seed does not say so until way down in the discussion, her organization is using the small board rules. Some of us were aware of that from the beginning and some were not. I will try to find that thread and post a link, but it is by Nosey and was started within the past week. 

Edited to add: well, I found the thread, and apparently you are the same person as member "Nosey" but you have changed your name. Perhaps you thought that by making this post using a different name we would not know who you are, but when you changed your name it changed your name on all of your posts.

We have cautioned you in the past about making changes in posts that wind up being misleading. As I recall, you promised not to do so again. However, you just did it again.

Edited May 18, 2019 at 03:33 PM by Richard Brown
Added last two paragraphs

[Josh Martin]

12 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

From watching  city council or other kinds of board meetings that demonstrate a chair person in action, it seems like that position and the duties associated with it are very neutral and procedural, and do not typically have “personality” injected into them.

You haven’t been to the City Council meetings I have, apparently.

12 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

In a situation where the chair in injects a lot of personality into the role, is it appropriate to remind them that it is a neutral role? 

It is appropriate to remind the chair of the rules. In a small board, however, there is no requirement that the chair be neutral (at least so far as RONR is concerned). There is also no rule against injecting a lot of personality, although that is probably not how I would describe the behavior below.

9 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Calling people by their first names, speaking back to those in debate as though they and answering them directly, like a conversation,

These things are not proper.

9 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

going back and forth with other members as they speak until they have “won” the exchange, after someone has spoken, paraphrasing their argument and then saying they disagree with it... interjecting their opinion anywhere they wish...

At least in a small board, I don’t think these actions violate any parliamentary rule.

9 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

having ongoing conversation with the management,

This would be improper during a meeting, but not outside of a meeting.

9 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

directing management independently of board voted-upon action, directing vendors outside of board voted-upon action, 

These things are not proper unless something else in the assembly’s rules authorize this person to take such actions. (Which they very well might - I believe I recall from a previous thread that the bylaws grant the President fairly expansive authority.)

12 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

In a situation where they have been doing this for a long time, how might one approach it?

These are your options:

• Talk to the chairman and see if you can persuade her to change her behavior.
• Use Points of Order and Appeals in an attempt to call members’ attention to the chairman’s behavior, with the aim of persuading the chair to change her behavior or to gain support for replacing the chairman.
• Attempt to remove the chairman through disciplinary procedures. See FAQ #20.
• Attempt to elect a new chairman in the next elections.

Good luck.

[Gary Novosielski]

How do you pronounce .oOllXllOo.?   Just like it's spelled?

[BabbsJohnson]

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Edited to add: well, I found the thread, and apparently you are the same person as member "Nosey" but you have changed your name. Perhaps you thought that by making this post using a different name we would not know who you are, but when you changed your name it changed your name on all of your posts.

We have cautioned you in the past about making changes in posts that wind up being misleading. As I recall, you promised not to do so again. However, you just did it again.

I removed a specific example that was not needed in order for the question to be clear. I didn’t think it would be an issue since at the time, there was only one very brief response, and it was in response to the general question, not the example.

The question was too convoluted with the extra example included. The example was redundant of the original question.

Yes, I realized the name change would be universal. I got tired of looking at the other name.

I realize I keep asking questions that are very similar, because I keep thinking I’m not capturing the nuances of the situation.

It would be easiest to be a fly on the wall at meetings, but they do not have a good reaction to recording, even though it is allowed by law. 

Edited May 18, 2019 at 08:26 PM by .oOllXllOo.
Clarification

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

I realize I keep asking questions that are very similar, because I keep thinking I’m not capturing the nuances of the situation.

It would be easiest to be a fly on the wall at meetings, but they do not have a good reaction to recording, even though it is allowed by law. 

What exactly do you feel this additional nuance will accomplish? What are you looking for? What do you think is missing in our previous answers that you think would be changed by additional nuance?

[BabbsJohnson]

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

What exactly do you feel this additional nuance will accomplish? What are you looking for? What do you think is missing in our previous answers that you think would be changed by additional nuance?

I have asked it is all the ways I can, I believe.  I can’t really ask in any more ways without the understanding that would be reached by actually listening to or witnessing what I’m talking about.

You all have been patient, informative, kind and courteous.

Even if you witnessed when I refer to-the unfolding of a meeting-the solutions that you point to would likely be the same.

Calling out issues in an environment where little is invested in understanding or respecting the rules of order has done nothing but made people think I’m being too meticulous, and since they have not been the focus of what I have issues with, they don’t necessarily care that I have.

The truth is, things like interrupting, talking whenever people feel like just blurting things out, while others wait politely,  back and forth exchanges that wear out the effectiveness of an argument because of belittling comments or fallacious counterarguments or questioning, that happens in almost every meeting.

It is stressful when I feel the Rules are the only thing that can help, because they are the only official resource to pull from, and that the level of knowledge and interest so far with them are minimal at best. It feels like a lone fight for something that’s supposed to be at the center of our transactions, but it’s not, and neither is the understanding of why they matter, their true purpose, and that they are not just some pain in the neck mandatory formality. 

Personally I think all the officer positions all need charters to clarify and reinforce the scope of the duties and responsibilities, because I think sometimes people assume things, and then act accordingly, and sometimes they assume something from ignorance, or it might be strategic, but in either case-it can be a wrong assumption.

If they do that long enough, and if what they’re doing is inappropriate, it becomes a malformed cultural tradition...like a tumor, that’s hard to formulate a remedy for, especially when that tumor gives someone something that serves them, and especially when someone fighting against that feels alone in seeing that there is something amiss, and showing others that it matters, and that it’s worth it to try a bit harder to get it right.

Sorry for the rant. I’m not sure I’ve communicated anything new or helpful. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2019 at 12:14 AM by .oOllXllOo.
Typo, minor content

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

If all members are content with disorder, there is indeed little you can do. But it's usually the case that some members share your frustration, even in some small measure. Then your mission becomes one of persuasion: showing them that more can be accomplished, with less effort, by following the rules of order. Some ways to do that are by example — following the rules yourself — and by organizing a parliamentary workshop to show people that the rules are not be feared but to be exploited. If you fail, then ultimately you must ask yourself whether it is worth your time to engage with an organization that is so at odds with your values.

[Josh Martin]

19 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

If you fail, then ultimately you must ask yourself whether it is worth your time to engage with an organization that is so at odds with your values.

Based on previous threads, my understanding is that this is an HOA, so the OP does not really have much choice in this matter, unless she wishes to move.

[BabbsJohnson]

10 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Based on previous threads, my understanding is that this is an HOA, so the OP does not really have much choice in this matter, unless she wishes to move.

Yes...try to change the culture, move or quit.

[Joshua Katz]

21 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Yes...try to change the culture, move or quit.

But, unfortuately, none of those are parliamentary solutions. There is no parliamentary solution if people are uninterested in following the rules, and the electorate is uninterested in getting a board that does.

[Benjamin Geiger]

22 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Yes...try to change the culture, move or quit.

Years ago I was given career advice, for what to do when your workplace is unpleasant: you can change your organization, or you can change your organization.

It applies (in most cases) to societies, as well. It may be unpleasant (as in the case of HOAs), but it can usually be done. No amount of parliamentary procedure will save an organization from itself.

[BabbsJohnson]

3 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

But, unfortuately, none of those are parliamentary solutions. There is no parliamentary solution if people are uninterested in following the rules, and the electorate is uninterested in getting a board that does.

I don’t think the membership understands that we use Roberts Eules unless individuals have been involved in volunteering on boards or other situations that might use them.  

 I see it as a valuable tool as well as having a philosophical side,  but I’m sure there are plenty of people that just think of it as a pain .

[jstackpo]

A point of view that works for me, in lectures, is that RONR is a (big) toolbox that empowers the user of the tools to get things done. An enabler, not a restraint.