What a mess. Haven't these folks ever heard of parlimentary procedure?
Parlimentary Procedure.... yes..... in parliment.
But in any meeting where it is 'town hall'...... it is the wrong presumption of organizers to think they are going to start the horse and pony telling the audience what it thinks and agrees with before it starts..... In such case, it becomes clear to these seniors, some of which, no doubt, have had experience sitting in group workshops where the outcome and the format was already predetermine by 'leaders' who would then steer all discussion and 'agreement' into a false 'consensus'.
These seniors knew the purpose of this meeting was not to get their opinion and ideas....(clue; the presumptive way the opening 'led' in) but to get the appearance and validation that the public had been consulted and was in agreement.
Not all 'committee' meetings or 'townhall' meetings or problem-group solving is design to get one's input. Many may start off with the appearance of order.... parlimentary or Robert's...... but, as useful as order is, if one is desiring discussion, openness, and input...... you don't head it off by telling others what they think and how they agree..... before they've had a chance to speak or vote....... to do so is (and I don't care if the rules don't have something to deal with this.....) dictatorship, anti-democratic, and impeachable. Instead of receiving the public, it is dictating to the public. The people retains only those rights it exercises. In our country.... free speach even gives US the right to refuse to conform to rules.... when, at some point, it becomes apparrent that the 'public platform' offered to us is for apprearance only..... and those so-called 'rules of order' are only designed to use, accuse, and control, limit or censor entirely, the free speach which was promised.
No matter what the song and lies from the AARP, this meeting was like so many which are predetermined in outcomes..... and the meeting is designed with the purpose of propagandizing consensus to the public like 'see here, we heard from you all..... and we all
came to agree'..... when there was no sincere attempt made to open the floor.
In reality, any meeting intended to get the public input.... can have an organized agenda which allows various presentations or questions..... but it is off..... dead off from the very start, if someone steps forward, promoting their own or their associations opinion as speaking for the group with out first having recognition by that group as leader and spokesperson.
I don't like AARP. Whatever their claims..... they are NOT apolitical.
I hope more people are observant of their free speach regarding this legislation and the meetings set up.
She left simply because she did not like what was said.
