Hi all
-
On December 11, 2008, Attorney David St. John presented a talk in our theater titled:
Successful Community Association Leadership Including:
-
Parlimentary Procedures
and
How to deal with difficult people.
-
Mindful of the incredible disruption being caused by a few at some of our UCO meetings, I am extracting the "How to deal with difficult people" section below:
...........................................
So, I ask you all, is it time to spend your money and mine to have a PBSO Deputy at every meeting of the Executive Board and the Delegate Assembly???
-
Dave Israel
-
A masterpiece of clarity from St John, thank you. The disrupters are dysfunctional and never provide help or useful activity. One more problem, they prevent useful work at UCO with their demands for historical documentation on matters that have been long settled.
ReplyDeleteHi Dave. You have a good point, but since our Allegiant Security cannot "lay hands" upon people to shut them up or escort them out, maybe we need PBSO for the next several meetings if people are acting out.
ReplyDeleteWhat a wonderful article. We can see that other people have the same problems with nonsense. I am all for allowing them to do a short presentation which if they cannot back it up with notarized documentation, plus a positive plan of action to fix the problem, they be asked or told to leave the meeting. The article certainly describes them to a T.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that might be done (and perhaps it already is, I haven't paid that close attention) is schedule discussion of the issue likely to bring out this person's disruptive behavior for last, or near last, on the agenda. Then, if you need to call in the police or stop the meeting, less damage has been done.
ReplyDeleteI did not attend the May delegates meeting but did attend last Friday's, the June, meeting. From what I saw, I don't think anyone can accuse you (Dave) of not having been patient with the offender. This is important and I think you are to be commended for it. By the same token, however, enough is enough, and I think you should NOT have to walk a tightrope in conducting the meeting. You should NOT be held hostage by the fact it will cost money to have the police, who can escort this man out, be present.
I'm sure it won't be necessary to do this forever. In the meantime, while it is necessary, I say we pay what it costs to maintain order.
Not to hold off any longer re the above, I would hope at the same time—because Mr. Grossman is a human being and we all go out on a limb at times—that he would come to his senses and realize he needs to stop the disruptive behavior. That's all it takes—an apology and change (of his behavior, not necessarily his convictions). We are a very forgiving people.
The irony, of course, will be that while Mr. Grossman laments "misspent money," we will be laying out money to keep him in line.
ReplyDeleteWhile the 3 minute rule is reasonable, and the ability to address the assembly for a second time for a 3 minute period after all others have had their say, I believe it would be appropriate to permit no more than two "bites of the apple" on any given subject. This 'rule of order' should be put to a vote of the Delegate Assembly at the beginning of New Business, at the July meeting, and included on the agenda as well.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I did not want to leave the meeting, I felt that I did not want to be, one of a captive audience of many, forced to listen to Mr. Grossman's diatribe. (A discourse of bitter, malicious criticism and abuse.) If he has no backup, or a positive plan of action, (as Mollie said), then they should be told to leave the meeting. arbe sox
ReplyDeleteI like the "two bites of the apple" rule of order being put to a vote. I also agree that it's time for PBSO involvemnent. In any case, Section C of Attorney St. John's guidelines should be followed before a speaker is removed (and for the most part they have been): calm response, an honest intent to listen, thanking the person for input, even calling a recess when respectful and good process fails. When every attempt has been made to accommodate a speaker's concern and disruption continues, the speaker has to go.
ReplyDeleteAnother measure that might help—if it can be done—would be cutting off the power to the speaker's microphone. This should take some of the wind out of the offender's sails. Do you remember a year or two ago when Dan Gladstone carried on at great length with the microphone in hand? He just laughed when the CV guards confronted him, made the point they could not legally take the mic from him, and continued talking so all could hear him. With the power cut off, an out-of-order speaker wouldn't be heard that well. If cutting off the power isn't possible now, perhaps it could be fixed so it is possible.
ReplyDeleteI never allowed more than three minutes. Alloting someone else your time is simply unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteYou can have your three minutes of nonsense and then respectfully ..... you are DONE.
I have been thinking some more about having a 3-minute rule with "two bites of the apple." I don't believe Robert's Rules of Order recommends voting on this in umbrella fashion to apply to all subjects being discussed at all meetings. My Robert's seems to apply this to specific subjects at specific meetings, as they come up. The restriction must be voted on and pass by a two-thirds majority because it limits a privilege.
ReplyDeleteThere are many occasions when the assembly would WANT a speaker to be able to say something at the mic three or four times--for example, if the discussion was amicable and we were getting advice from an expert.
There needs to be provision for BOTH situations, I think: when we want a speaker to not be time-limited and when we want to limit speaking times. The only way to do this is for the decision to be made AT THE TIME. According to my Robert's, ANYONE, without interrupting a speaker, can call for a vote on this. The motion must be seconded, and discussion of the motion is NOT allowed.
Hi Lanny,
ReplyDeleteJune 6, 2012 10:50 PM,
I agree completely, but what of the case where the speaker is just getting up to mislead and disrupt?
Is such a speaker to be given unrestricted time to ramble on and on.
These people have declared war on UCO, what exactly do you think "Carthage must be Destroyed" means??
They are trying to raise funds to launch a law suit, they are calling Association Presidents soliciting signatures in order to launch a recall; they are bringing down the coercive force of Government onto the Seniors of Century Village, all because, and I quote:
"I don't like the contract" now you tell me, is this rational behavior to which we must pander at our business meetings??
Dave Israel
Simply add to your agenda that speakers "may" be limited to 3 minutes ....
ReplyDeleteHi Dave,
ReplyDeleteThe last thing I would want to do is make life more difficult for you as moderator. I think you have done admirably.
I guess I would suggest the following, which would preserve the right of someone--for example, the expert everyone wants to hear out--to speak more than two times:
The moderator (you or anyone else in charge), knowing in advance the subject coming up will provide an occasion for those who want to disrupt, can announce the application of the 3-minute, "two bites of the apple" rule. Or whatever variant of this seems appropriate, such as perhaps only ONE bite of the apple, or application of this to the entire meeting, not only this one agenda item.
But the rule should not apply to all subjects at all future delegates meetings. Perhaps that has not been intended by any in this Blog discussion. If it has been intended, I think we would come to regret something this sweeping.
I agree, too, with jmitaly's recommendation that one should not be able to have his unused time applied to another speaker's time--as they do in the US Senate.
If you have a speaker attend the meeting for informational or educational purposes they should be on the agenda therefore there would be no limit on time alloted.
ReplyDeleteI did not attend the last two meetings in question but from what I have read this unproductive nonsense needs to be stopped.
JMHO :-)