How much Should One Take of Vocal Criticism?

I don't know how to answer that specific question, except that nothing you describe sounds like defamation. If she accuses someone of a specific crime without foundation or calls them "criminals", that might be actionable. It's probably best to consider this in terms of having civil and effective meetings, rather than go to Court. Is she violent? Does she get in anyone's face -- screaming at them, within their personal space, intimidating? Profanity? That's verbal assault, and either it stops or she goes.

If she's just emotional, mildly rude, disliked, then perhaps it's best to just deal with it. I can't say exactly where to draw the line; but if she has any real complaint, then her behavior is probably hurting her case more than anyone else.

It is a free country. It's not a crime to make mistakes or be stupid, nor is it a crime to say so of someone else. It's just not nice and usually not welcome or smart.

I think a first step would be for the Board (perhaps the President/Chairperson) to assign/appoint a "Sergeant at Arms" to be responsible for order. One person who is capable can do a better job than various well-intentioned or angry people talking over each other and the offending attendee to tell the person to shut up. If someone is assigned this task, it is more likely that they will handle incidents calmly and in measured steps, and that everyone else will be quiet when the SaA interjects. This should be someone who can command respect and can do so without political overtones.

The President or SaA should announce this role at the start of the meeting, and also set some ground rules (no shouting, no overt rudeness and accusations, no profanity, one person gets to speak at a time, the Chair determines who and when). If a homeowner is expected to misbehave, someone should talk to them quietly in private before the meeting to set the ground rules.

Fairness should be shown -- if the SaA has to ask people to stop because of bad behavior, everyone (or at least people on various sides) should be permitted to speak. If it looks like the issue of civility or the bad behavior of one person is being used to silence viewpoints, then the call to civility will not be credible or respected. (Also, open discussion is fair and beneficial to the Association on the whole; civil discussion should promote such open exchange.)

=-=-=

In our HOA, we have had problems with some Board meetings devolving into shouting on brief occasions. Fortunately, these were not well-attended meetings; considering the problems with which we are dealing, it could have been a lot worse. Not one person, but several people on each side. Also, one Director felt the need to interject and decry loudly as untrue points, with which he disagreed and which did not support his agenda; he has also been notable for proclaiming support for his agenda with statements that appeared to be clearly inaccurate (to be polite). At the same time, supporters of the Board's agenda would heckle polite opposition, after which the President would threaten to (and eventually) adjourn the meeting due to "unruly homeowners". These things (Director and heckling) happened at larger meetings.

I pointed out, privately, to a responsible Director that the Board could not expect homeowners to continue to be polite at meetings, if our Directors and President choose not to control their own. In the three months since, the offending Director has kept his head down and mouth shut, and both sides have had their say without difficulty. Some people speak at greater length or more emotionally than others, but mostly without invective or interruption.

There are MANY things that this person complains about and none is true. In particular, calling by name a Board member an alcoholic (in talking to others and not to the Board member face to face) and another Board member as being totally incompetent in their field (to others but not to the Board member).

Alex you say she goes to meetings and screams and yells? Throw her out! You should have guidelines for how and when people are allowed to speak at your board meetings. It's not a free for all. State Statutes allow for people to speak at meetings but the board decides when that will be. Our guideline is posted at the bottom of every posted meeting agenda: BOARD MEETINGS ARE FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO CONDUCT ASSOCIATION BUSINESS. COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS ARE WELCOME BUT ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER AGENDA ITEM. COMMENTS CANNOT BE MADE UNTIL THE BOARD HAS FINISHED THEIR DISCUSSION ON EACH ITEM.

If she disrupts at ANY time ask her to hold her comments until called. If she can't do that she can be asked to leave.

Basically, the issue is civil debate and/or discussion. People may resent rules developed by a board. It is much better to adopt rules from Parliamentary Law. Those rules have been developed by professionals and likely have considered the issues described in this thread.

The following is from The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure by Alice Sturgis at page 125:

Members' Conduct During Debate

Debate must be fundamentally impersonal. All discussion is addressed to the presiding officer and must never be directed to an individual.

A motion — its nature or consequences — may be attacked vigorously. But it is never permissible to attack the motives, character, or personality of a member either directly or by innuendo or implication. It is the duty of the presiding other instantly to stop any member who engages in personal attacks or discusses the motives of another member or is discourteous in word or manner. If the presiding officer fails to interrupt, any member may rise to a point of order and call the attention of the presiding officer to the speaker's misconduct. It is the motion, not the proposer, that is the subject of debate. Meetings must discuss measures, not people,

Arguments and opinions should be stated as concisely as possible, A speech is made not for the pleasure of the speaker or for the entertainment of others, hut to assist the assembly in arriving at a decision on the question under discussion.

A member is more likely to be effective in debate when demonstrating courtesy toward the presiding officer and other members. Anyone who uses improper language or acts in a disorderly manner should be called to order promptly by the presiding officer. When a point of order is raised concerning a speaker's conduct, the speaker must be seated until the point of order is decided by the presiding officer.

A member who fails or refuses to speak in an orderly and courteous manner may be denied the right to the floor and, if necessary, may be ejected from the meeting by order of (he presiding officer or by a vote of the assembly.

The above is one of the many arguments for designation of a Parliamentary Authority in the bylaws.

This person should be advised in advance of the adoption of rules developed by an authority, not the board.

I find that many times the anger and assertiveness of a person can be diffused by acknowledging to that person that he/she has been heard. It is best done by repeating back to the person what you believe you heard.

Of course, a good faith effort has to be made by the board to address issues that are raised — even if the recommendations are not adopted. At a minimum, the person should understand that he/she has been heard and has had his/her "day in court".

DonN: All well and good but if the irrate, hateful individual refuses to leave(which that person would do definitely), what course is there but to close the meeting?

You are simply looking for a method to enforce ejection from the meeting? For that, call the police and ask under what circumstances they will do so. If the meeting is at someone's home, then I would expect the police would remove someone at the host's request. If in another facility, then probably at request of the President or the facility owner. It's probably best to establish clear guidelines in advance, give the person in question warning, perhaps ask them to leave one meeting an bar them from the next if they refuse.

As an alternative to calling the police when things get out of hand, you could ask the sheriff's office to station an officer at the meeting, who would discuss things with the President in advance and enforce order. (Law enforcement may have different names or offices in your locale.) The presence of a deputy or security guard may itself motivate orderly conduct.

Closing the meeting because of one person is a bad idea -- it penalizes everyone for the conduct of one, and it's bad for the Association. Sometimes making everyone responsible for everyone' conduct works to induce peer pressure, but I don't think it would be a good solution in this case.

All that said, I don't think we have a clear picture of what's going on. This is an answer to what you asked, but I don't pretend to know what would work in your real-world situation. I suspect you may have better alternatives than ejection, banning, and law enforcement.

I agree with pretty much everything others have posted in this thread -- especially Don's and Anna's suggested policies and methods.

Alex, it's simply not as hopeless as you are making this out to be. And you have granted this person a great deal of power over you already. You need to take that back.

First, contact your local police department and ask if they have any officers who would be willing to moonlight as a sergeant-at-arms at a local association board meeting.

The rates are usually pretty reasonable, many many police officers do this. (well, and provide security at local high school games, etc.) It's very common.

Even if the rates seem a bit steep at first, consider the alternative, which is to cede control of the meeting to the troublemaker. Well worth the price and you may well only need the officer once or twice.

Second, announce at the opening of the meeting that the officer is serving as sergeant-at-arms and is there to ensure a peaceful meeting so that the business of the organization can proceed.

Third, as the others have said, you can "recognize" the person to speak, allow her to get her comments off her chest and into the record, but when her time is up, thank her and move on.

If she starts to disrupt, ask her the please refrain and if she doesn't, then instruct the sergeant-at-arms to please escort her from the meeting.

Then proceed and do not address the disruption.

Again, you really can't do anything to stop her outside of the meeting, but you do have at least one option to remove her from the meeting if she gets out of line.

You just have to be willing to use it.

Alex, I agree with what Michelle stated herE. SHE (the distrupter) certainly seems to have a lot of control over the rest of you. We had the same thing happening here. In January of this year we wrote out a statement and delivered or mailed it to every single owner and resident of our community. I don't know if you'd consider doing the same thing but this is what ours states:

JANUARY 14, 2009
BOARD MEETINGS OF
XYZ CONDO ASSOCIATION

1. BOARD MEETINGS ARE NOT MEMBER'S MEETINGS.

2. BOARD MEETINGS ARE HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS TO DISCUSS ASSOCIATION BUSINESS.

3. BOARD MEMBERS ARE NOT TO BE DISRUPTED WHILE AGENDA
TOPICS ARE BEING DISCUSSED.

4. AT THE END OF THE BOARD MEMBER'S DISCUSSION THE BOARD
WILL ASK FOR COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS.

5. MEMBERS WILL BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON THE AGENDA ITEM TOPIC
AT THAT TIME.

6. MEMBERS ARE LIMITED TO SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES ON EACH
AGENDA ITEM.

7. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WILL CONSIDER EACH MEMBER'S COMMENTS,
BUT IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO DELAY THEIR DECISIONS BASED ON
COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS.

8. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WERE ELECTED TO MAKE DECISIONS AND
RUN THE ASSOCIATION ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS.

9. MEMBERS NOT WILLING TO COMPLY WITH THE PROCESS OR ANYONE
WHO IS DISRUPTIVE WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE MEETING.

ALL OF THIS IS TO PROVIDE A PROPER, EFFECTIVE MEETING, IN ACCORDANCE
TO THE RULES, COVENANTS AND STATE STATUTES.

We had a big-mouth, harrassing, former board member who thought she was STILL in charge and who constantly disrupted our meetings stating that WE work for HER and that her input was what we needed to listen to and obey. She actually TOLD us that we couldn't make any decisions without the direction of the members! WRONG!!! That's not how it works. Thus we came up with the above statement. We also include a copy of this with our "welcome packet" that we deliver to new residents.

AnnaD2's 11/29/2009 4:19 PM post is an example of implementation of Florida's law which I described in Open Forum at Meetings. Note items (5)-(7) in AnnaD2's post.

Providing the opportunity to speak to the board before a decision is made gives members to express their views — sometimes vigorously and with passion. They may not like the decision but they know they had their "day in court".

Mary, Don, Anna, et. al.,

Do you think a time limit in the policy should be strictly adhered to, or do you think it should be used to simply reserve the right to limit discussion in length and redundancy and move the meeting forward? Do you know of any Open Meeting laws that allow or prohibit such time limits? Do you view the time limit (3 minutes in the policy that Anna posted) as "per agenda item" or as "per person per item"?

Michael,

This is how the AZ HOA Open Meeting Law is worded. In addition to saying that all meetings are open to members and that they or their designated rep shall be permitted to attend and speak at a designated time, it goes on to say: "The board may place reasonable time restrictions on those persons speaking during the meeting but shall permit a member or member's designated rep to speak b/4 the board takes formal action on an item under discussion in addition to any other opportunities to speak. The board shall provide for a reasonable number of persons to speak on each side of an issue."

As you can see the BOD may place time restrictions and also restrict the number of people who may speak. This would be required only when there are alot of people wanting to speak on the same issue, in which case, the board may ask for a rep from each side of the issue to speak. Regarding time restrictions, depending upon how many people want to speak should be the determining factor for placing a time restriction. However, if there is no time restriction and you get a long winded person speaking it would be up to the Chair to inform him that his time is up. BTW, the time limit would apply each time a person wanted to speak, which would be b/4 each issue is voted on and once during the other designated time.

Thanks, Mary!

I think HOA's in states lacking such laws could take advantage of such legislation by enacting amendments or policies with similar provisions.

Brian, I agree that a rule should be consistently enforced, and that the Chair should take pains to avoid enforcing a rule based on a speaker's position. However, I think "consistent" should mean "consistently for all speakers," not necessarily "exactly as stated." I think a Board would show wisdom by understanding the fundamental intent of such policies and applying them with an eye to that spirit.

Thanks Donna for reiterating what I was trying to convey to the origninal poster....from FLORIDA.

Michael,

3 minutes is a long time. Look at 30 second commercials that are obnoxious and not understandable and seem to last forever. Multiply that by 10 and you have an oration from a member that could become a problem.

Multiply that by 10 members? I would be in my sleep mode unless the topic was relevant to current Board agenda items. ZZZZZZZZ

Don,

Thank you for the excellent post. Your input is so valuable and you just proved it by reconsidering your opinion and having the smarts to say so, backing it up with sound reasoning. We need to be reminded of the fact that we are just writting opinions and that is what we are supposed to be doing here.

This brings up a pet peeve, which I admit is off-topic.

Televised news reports and political campaign advertisements are also (usually) short sound bytes, on the order of 30 seconds. Thus, they are uninformative and tailored for dramatic impact, rather than to present a rational argument or provoke thought. Before the 1970s, most news was delivered via printed media, and perhaps the first decade of television news was patterned after that model. It was much better than what we have today.

In some places there are laws that require political advertisements to be a minimum length -- I think fifteen minutes[\b]? I can't recite the details, but campaigning takes a much more thoughtful tone under that requirement. Candidates cannot address the public without actually saying something and explaining themselves.

I'm not suggesting this should impact the rules for Members to speak at HOA (BoD or Membership) meetings, but this discussion brought to mind something I chose to share. Less is not always more.