National Assembly Forums

srowanwilson says: "May I suggest that someone bring a motion AS the disruptive behavior occurs. Point out the problems AS it happens then IMMEDIATELY make a motion to censure and move-on with a 'warning' for that person.

The 'three strikes you are OUT' may work. The three different people bringing up beyond warning before someone(s) are kicked out and off of the phone call to meeting. It is my hope that peop0le will self-select out as they did this past Saturday at our formation."

Bringing a motion AS the disruptive behavior occurs would result in the same procedure in which we are currently engaged. That is to say, if one were to bring a motion at the time the disruptive behavior occurs, that motion would need to be seconded then placed on the Motions and Discussions page for three weeks while We, the People, discuss the motion (just like We are doing now), so that process has already begun. In addition, it seems to me to be the case that by having this motion in place (once the discussion phase is completed and the vote ends up being in favor, if that happens), We would then have a tool that could very quickly and decisively quell disruptive behavior without having to rely on a disrupter's self-selecting, conscientious "opting out".

During this time the motion is being discussed, it also seems to me that We, the callers, would have opportunities to IMMEDIATELY point out, as disruptive behavior occurs, why this motion is needed. In other words, if a disruptive behavior event occurs sometime between now and when the motion is voted on, at the time of that disruptive behavior event, any one of us could speak up and illustrate that this disruptive behavior event is precisely what this motion is designed to remedy. I'm in favor of following through with the current process then voting on the motion as it reads and not in favor of bringing another motion "...AS the disruptive behavior occurs."

pulldapin says: "i suggest the situation be addressed as such....anyone believing that the current speaker is speaking in a manner that is considered to be o.v.d., state "point of order, speaker is o.v.d."...if no resolution on the offenders part, that it be seconded by another...if followed by a third or any other indication i.e. here here ...then the offender is without delay immediately muted and no further discussion is to be held until conclusion of the business portion of the meeting is concluded … i have intentionally left out some details so as not to drag this out..."

This does appear to me to be a reasonable, viable answer to the first of the two questions placed on the Motions and Discussions page of this website (see viewtopic.php?f=232&t=2203&sid=b0f6c6ab ... c74e23a158 , third entry from the top {1. How would the 3 or more attendees object to the offender’s disruptive talk-situation(s)?}). Please do add your own thoughts here on this exclusively Florida discussion page on this proposed method which We, the People who are attendees/participants on the Thursday night, National Assembly conference calls, may reasonably and effectively object to another's obnoxious-verbose-disruptive talk.

GraceG says: "I agree with the procedure for removing a disruptor. I think it needs to be defined.
Would you consider this list: Disruptive Behaviors that Qualify for Expulsion
Any behaviors/ activities that do not comport with a peaceful assembly and respectful mannerisms to any and all in attendance or not present.
Any actions that delay the flow of the agenda.
Verbal and/or physical attacks on a person in attendance or talked about but not present.
Profanity and ill-mannered behavior are never acceptable.
Disrespectful of policies and procedures stated in writing or verbally."

I would agree that the term "disruptive behaviors" needs to be defined.
1. Any behaviors/activities that do not comport with a peaceful assembly and respectful mannerisms to any and all in attendance or not present.
That covers a lot of ground and may be all that is needed. Might just add the words "policies and procedures stated in writing or verbally"
after the word "assembly" in the original sentence to read as: "Any behaviors/activities that do not comport with a peaceful assembly, policies
and procedures stated in writing or verbally and/or respectful mannerisms to any and all in attendance or not present."

2. As for the entry "Any actions that delay the flow of the agenda", I would not include this since the simple act of exercising this motion would necessarily delay the flow of the agenda.

What is considered "obnoxious-verbose-disruptive situations"? Questions being asked or the obnoxious verbose disruptive comments made against the inquisitor?

CynDLou asks "What is considered 'obnoxious-verbose-disruptive situations?' " The initiator of the motion (Paul) has not defined the terms in this context, so it would seem to me that We, the People, could define the terms as they are applied in this context. Here's a beginning:

obnoxious: 1) use of foul, vulgar or obscene language; 2) use of ridicule, derision or scorn in an attempt to diminish another

verbose: 1) continuing to talk at length when either the point has already been made or could have been made with far fewer words

disruptive: 1) habitually interruptive; 2) speaking off-topic; 3) voicing wild and unsubstantiated accusations

I'm sure there probably are more ways to define these terms. Please do add your input.

many ma halos John...on point
if i may...what source did you use for definitions?

Definitions came from my understanding of the words in common usage plus some help from dictionary.com.

Hi my name is Lisa and I live in Citrus County Florida. I would love to help my community. If you need any assistance in this area. I would like to be part of this new journey.

Thank you

Hello, if you are still interested in joining the FGJA, please email me at FGJAComSec@protonmail.com with your contact number and I would be happy to give you a call to discuss.

regards,
JoAnn, Broward county
FGJA Communications Secretary
FGJAComSec@protonmail.com