2 points
Hi Anonymous! Glad to answer your question.
First, the primary point I tried to address in the meeting was this:
The motion that was on the floor directly involved Steve who also happened to be chairing the meeting. Because the motion involved him, RROO recommends that another person takes over responsibility for controlling the discussion, etc., to avoid charges of improperly running the meeting. As it actually happened, the discussion sometimes took tangents, 2nds to motions were missed, there were disruptions, etc. Things got confusing and distracting. At least for me!
Also because I misunderstood the motion (part of the confusion), I also tried to suggest that the discussion be deferred to a later meeting when more members could be present. Now that I've updated myself on RROO, I understand there is a procedure to make such a motion to defer.
Second point: Per "Decorum," the storm brewing outside the church was matched by the emotions inside. I'm all for heated debate but it seemed to me that some comments were out of order on both sides of the motion. Upon reading RROO, I was surprised to read how it constructively suggests keeping discussions objective and to avoid making personal attacks on other members.
Although Monday's meeting was a gross aberration, we do lapse sometimes in other meetings. So, my thought about "decorum" is that it is a good standard to consciously strive for.
By Joe O'Connor
Hi Anonymous! Glad to answer your question.
First, the primary point I tried to address in the meeting was this:
The motion that was on the floor directly involved Steve who also happened to be chairing the meeting. Because the motion involved him, RROO recommends that another person takes over responsibility for controlling the discussion, etc., to avoid charges of improperly running the meeting. As it actually happened, the discussion sometimes took tangents, 2nds to motions were missed, there were disruptions, etc. Things got confusing and distracting. At least for me!
Also because I misunderstood the motion (part of the confusion), I also tried to suggest that the discussion be deferred to a later meeting when more members could be present. Now that I've updated myself on RROO, I understand there is a procedure to make such a motion to defer.
Second point: Per "Decorum," the storm brewing outside the church was matched by the emotions inside. I'm all for heated debate but it seemed to me that some comments were out of order on both sides of the motion. Upon reading RROO, I was surprised to read how it constructively suggests keeping discussions objective and to avoid making personal attacks on other members.
Although Monday's meeting was a gross aberration, we do lapse sometimes in other meetings. So, my thought about "decorum" is that it is a good standard to consciously strive for.
By Joe O'Connor
