Wanted to acknowledge TM Collins who ask the chair for clarification of a motion to lay on the table. Anytime you are unsure of what’s happening in a meeting you have the right to ask.

Trust me. If you’re not sure of what’s happening you won’t be alone.

Also our first round of the International Speech Contest is coming in two weeks so all members who have given six manual speeches are qualified to compete.

As we said last night,it’s not about winning the contest. The real prize is in the experience of trying.

Here’s an excerpt:

A San Francisco cable car holds 60 people. This blog was viewed about 2,000 times in 2011. If it were a cable car, it would take about 33 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

After saying that timing wasn’t the issue when it came to my last two speeches and that it was all about group decision-making and if we could all play in the sandbox together, timing is something I’ve been thinking about lately.

I noticed while there maybe differences of opinion when it comes to how successfully we played together, there was a lot of consensus around some timing issues for the club.

For example, the top suggestion was to the effect that the chair limit their opening remarks to one to two minutes. I’ve timed some chairs out to five to eight minutes and trust me none of these talks were worth the time IMHO. And before anybody gets their nose out of joint, I’m very guilty of talking too much, too often, too loudly and too poorly.

So why should we put limits on the amount of time given the officers of the evening?

It’s because the main focus of the meeting should be on the speakers and not on the officers.

I particularly find general evaluators who use the role to either review every officer (starting we “I was greeted warmly”…who cares? I’d be more interested if you were greeted poorly then there’d be something to help us grow) or who think they need to find scores of points of failure to rail about. This isn’t helpful IMHO.

The best GE’s find something nice to say overall and then offer one point of suggestion and end with a compliment directed at the chair or toastmaster wrapping up their report in three minutes flat.

Most GE comments that are anymore direct are best delivered personally after the meeting rather than using the power of the podium.

We’ve got to keep the focus on the speakers. It’s their night and not ours!

Case in point:

Recently I attended a Toastmaster contest where the organizer did a bang up job with two exceptions. The chair for one contest used the occasion to deliver his hour-long comedy routine. One joke was nice. Twenty plus jokes and funny faces was annoying.

Then the chief judge for one of the contests started his judging comments by waving around a huge dictionary that he said were the contest rules. Ha Ha.

Then he proceed to read all the rules, and I mean all the rules, all three pages of rules that Toastmasters provides the judges for guidance. It was when he started to tell us how a speaker should be introduced that I almost got up and objected. Apparently I wasn’t alone in this feeling as several other Toastmasters were livid about the waste of time. The contest went 30 to 45 minutes too long and all of this time was taken up by these two poorly trained officers who should have known better.

So as I learn more and more about how to lead groups and be of service to the members of the club, I realize that it’s not all about me (I know this will come as a shock to some.) and that the focus should be on the speakers.

Maybe the thought about the shephard’s crook or the shock collars aren’t necessarily out of the question?

I want to thank everyone for their input. The comments from this week’s discussion were even more helpful and insightful than the comments from the brainstorming session last week. And, by the way, those comments from last week were amazingly helpful and generally positive.

Advanced manual speeches bring with them advanced speaking challenges and the last two week’s speeches were no exception.

Based on the comments, emails and conversations it’s become apparent to me that a couple of our members may have misunderstood the intention of the speeches.

Neither speech had anything to do with their topic which was could we find ways to end on time.

Seems a couple of folks may have missed the point that the speech topic wasn’t the issue. The speeches were designed to be exercises in group decision-making and learning how to work together as a team. Both speeches were all about how (or if) we could collectively solve the issues that challenge us as a club.

I picked the ending-on-time topic as one that all members, both old and new, could relate, understand and make contributions to on both nights and to that end I think I was successful as we had lots of debate from many new and more seasoned members.

I really regret not insisting we use Toastmaster’s recommended longer timing for the speeches. As it was, we shortchanged ourselves by using the optional lesser timing. This was my fault as I thought we could reach our objectives in the shorter time that some desired and as far as I’m concerned we failed to do so as so ably pointed out by my evaluator on the second night.

As I said several times last week and this during this week’s discussion, this was a process of group decision-making and the best three ideas would be forwarded to the executive for their consideration and nothing more. I obviously didn’t make this point clearly enough all.

I knew I had messed this up when near the end of the second session there was a request that we poll the assembly to see if ending late was an issue for anyone.  I realized then I had failed to properly define the parameters around the debate. In fact, one of the evaluations from the first session accused me of having a hidden agenda and that I needed to fess up. Quite frankly I was shocked by this accusatory comment and I have spoken to the Toastmaster about it.

So when it came to the request for the poll I couldn’t see anyway to refuse it at that time, even though I knew it was off topic and didn’t serve the process of the debate. If I had refused it I risked looking mean-spirited so I allowed it but frankly it impacted the time left for the closing that I had prepared and it did throw me off stride somewhat.

On the other hand, several good points did come out of the debate and may well be adopted by the club.

Several members spoke about providing new members with an outline of officer’s duties included recommended timing. The assembly agreed that points 4 – chair’s introductory remarks be limited to one to two minutes; point 19 – change website to ask guests to arrive early; and point 20 – training for smaller roles were their top three choices for suggestions to be forwarded to the executive.

And as to the debate question about ending on time, personally I don’t care.

What I do care about is how sharp and together we look as an organization when we do what we say we’re going to do and how sloppy and lackadaisical we look when the timing goes out the window. But that’s just me and I don’t represent anybody’s opinion but my own.

Folks: It was just a speech. The point of doing speeches in Toastmasters IMHO is to practice, to learn and to work together.

Sometimes it’s going to go well and sometimes it’s going to be messy.

As President Dave Webster’s points out, First Oakville is a very successful Toastmaster club with a terrific new executive but we have some challenges.

For example, normally Toastmaster clubs expect a 30 per cent drop in membership from one year to the next. That turnover is filled with new members joining by year’s end.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, First Oakville which ended the year with 50 members saw only five members deciding not to return (and three of those five left us because they have moved out of town).

So that leaves us with a club that has 50-plus members and often sees five or more guests visiting nightly.

A “normal” Toastmaster club has somewhere between 20 and 40 members. These clubs will see around 25 members attending meetings on a regular basis and thus can meet all of their members’s demands for speaking spaces.

At First Oakville with 50-plus members we can’t do it. Or at least we can’t do it and end on time.

So it comes down to a decision about whether or not to have four speakers (at a minimum of 5 to 7 minutes of speaking time each) plus four evaluators (at three minutes each) plus all the extra seconds of getting up and sitting down that involves or do we keep to three speakers and end on time?

In his presidential address Dave has acknowledged that ending on time is an issue for the members (as determined by a member survey) however he concludes by saying “so with the structure of our meetings, there will be times we run over.”

This isn’t really an acceptable answer IMHO.

If it’s the structure that is causing the issue then let’s change the structure.

But it’s not really the structure is it? First Oakville has too many members. That’s the issue.

If we try to provide speaking spaces for all these members every meeting will end at 10 pm  on a regular basis and that is not acceptable to many members – myself included.

Besides if we try to accommodate every person who shows up at the door with a cheque in hand where will this end?

No, the answer IMHO is to keep to three speakers per night.

Those of us who are not getting their education needs met will have to make a decision about whether to stay at First Oakville or go and join another club.

Besides this added pressure might help motivate some of us to contact the area governor and start or mentor a new club (or two) in the Oakville/Burlington area. That’s the real answer and it’s an issue for the club leadership to reconsider.

If you agree that ending when we say we’re going to end is both important and an issue of showing leadership (which is what Toastmaster’s is all about) then please let the executive know your thoughts.

Article one is from Saturday’s Globe and Mail. It’s an essay by Michael Ignatieff (yes that Michael Ignatieff) about a government’s right to rule.

In it, he says, that one of the tasks of government and perhaps the first task, is to protect, to defend and to secure.

Any government that does not, loses their legitimacy, their capacity and their competence.

Mr. Ignatieff then lists the failures of the American government  which include 911, weapons of mass destruction, Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, New Orleans, the economic crisis, the mortgage bubble, the Gulf of Mexico wellhead burst and the US national debt.

He says that when you look at this list of government failures there’s no surprise that the American people have grown cynical of government.

The second article, from the Sunday New York Times, is about a woman in India who has been on a hunger strike to protest government policy!

The 39-year-old poet and activist was returned to her hospital bed to be feed by a court-ordered feeding tube after she refused to drop her hunger strike.

And what is she protesting? Her cause is to get India to remove the laws that shield security forces from prosecution.

And she has held to this protest for 11 years.

So what’s this got to do with Toastmasters?

Here’s another illustration that might help to set the stage.

Another national organization of which I was an executive member until I resigned last year (somewhat in protest as I could no longer in good faith support the decisions being made or not made by the leaders of the organization) is facing total collapse as the membership falls and few, if any, seem inclined to put their names forward for office.

Why has this happened? IMHO it’s because the leaders of the organization ran the national association like a private business. Decisions were made that served the organization but didn’t serve the members and now the members are voting with their feet.

This is a failure of governance. The executive team lost its legitimacy to govern and the members are not supporting them and the organization is going to fail.

So back to Toastmasters.

We can take these lessons right down to the club level and apply them to individual meetings.

Our club executives are elected to serve and not govern.

Executive teams that understand this principle thrive even in difficult times. Why? Because they have the support of the members of the club behind them. And while there maybe differences of opinion, which is healthy, there is no descent or protest that results and the members will rush to the defence of its executive group and support their decisions if subject to outside attack.

Even the chairperson of the night is wise to remember that their agenda does not represent the sovereign will of the assembly. The agenda is merely a guide to what might happen during the night. The actual power to change the agenda rests with the assembly.

And it is the responsibility of every member to be ever vigilant and ready to protest whenever they think the will of the assembly is not being served.

Thankfully in Toastmasters we do not have to go on 11-year hunger strikes.

It is absolutely essentially and our duty as members that we remember that our leaders (whether they be the chair for evening, the executive team or our national leaders) are fallible and need our help and support. We can help support them by being vigilant and willing to share our thoughts with the greater assembly every time we think we can be helpful.

In Toastmasters we find how to do this in Robert’s Rules of Order.

Every member should be aware of what is happening during the meeting.

If for any reason you are not certain of what to do, you are allowed to stand and say “Mr. Chair, I rise to a parliamentary inquiry.”

The chair may reply or ask the Parliamentarian for an opinion.

BTW when you’re the Parliamentarian, you are not expected to know all the answers.

If you do not know you may ask an individual from the assembly to offer an opinion of which you may or may not take. The chairperson should not allow members to comment without being first recognized and then asked to stand.

In the situation where you believe that procedurally something is out of order you again rise without waiting to be recognized (and you may interrupt a speaker who has the floor) and say: Mr. or Madame Chairman I rise to a point of order. You do not need a seconder.

The chair is obliged by our procedural law (Robert’s Rules) to recognize you immediately and say “State your point of order.”

If the chair makes a decision that you disagree with or you feel offends the will of the assembly then it is your responsibility as a member to rise (again without being recognized) and state (loudly) “I appeal from the decision of the chair.” This appeal requires a seconder and the chair may choose to explain their decision but he or she is obligated to call for a vote of the assembly.

Chairpersons and executive groups and national leaders don’t make perfect decisions. They do the best they can. It is up to the rest of us to offer them our guidance. If we fail to do so, we have no right to complain when they attempt to fulfill their roles.

By the way, when challenged the chair may ask the assembly to comment and thereby start a debate.

The chair may also ask the Parliamentarian to give an opinion and when the Parliamentarian rises all debate must cease and all other members, which the exception of the chair, must be seated and be silent.

Okay so let’s say you’re asked to say a few words at your company’s annual meeting or your best friend’s wedding or your Toastmaster meeting.

The only problem is you forgot about it. (Sorry to tell you kids but this happens a lot when you get older. I carry a tape recorder around somedays.)

So rather than sneak out the door, you decide you can do this!

Here’s what I’ve done in the past:

1. Write out the first line or two that tells the audience what you’re going to say;
2. Write the topic line for two or three stories that illustrate your point;
3. Write out your closing so you’re sure you hit it (If I’m going to screw anything up, it will be the big closing line);
4. Walk confidently to the lectern, shake the presenter’s hand and put a BIG smile on your face;
5. Read the first line, tell your stories, read your closing line (if necessary) and receive the applause.

Joining a Toastmaster club is a privilege. Guests who wish to join fill out an application and the club members vote whether or not to accept the application.

Once the cheque clears the bank the applicant can now call themselves a Toastmaster. But the formalities don’t end there. Very soon the vice president of membership holds an induction ceremony where the new member and their fellow club members exchange a series of pledges.

While the wording may change from club to club essentially the member pledges to attend meetings regularly and prepare fully for each assignment. They also are required to apply themselves to the Toastmaster program, participate in club activities, evaluate others in a positive, constructive manner, to create open, friendly relationships with fellow members and to bring new members into Toastmasters.

This is a big pledge.

Among other things it means that even if you’re not on the agenda you have pledged to attend meetings regularly. When we attend meetings regularly we get to know our fellow members. We have the opportunity to speak during Table Topics and the business session. We can offer helpful positive evaluations to the speakers and in this we learn how to become better evaluators. Not showing up when we’re not on the agenda means that not only are we missing out on a learning opportunity but we’re not keeping out word.

The same thing goes when we decide we’re not going to complete the role assigned to us on the agenda.

Not only does this inconvenience your fellow members but you are missed and it is noticed. If you can’t attend for whatever reason, it’s your responsibility to find a replacement. Firing off an email to the club list is allowed but it remains your responsibility to ensure the role is filled. Members who regularly miss filling their roles can expect a call from the vp of ed or their mentor.

Agendas are sent out in advance so that we can make plans to fulfill our roles. Whether it’s something as simple as greeting or helping the sergeant-at-arms or being the chair or the Toastmaster each role is important in its own way. New members who are greeters have an opportunity to meet their fellow members and, perhaps more importantly, are the first person guests meet when they come in the door. A warm and welcoming greeting can do much to encourage newcomers to join Toastmasters.

The chair for the evening sets the tone for the entire night. A well-prepared chair (and Toastmaster) can deliver a memorable and enjoyable meeting that starts and ends on time (a rare feat lately).

But is all this emphasis on pledges and keeping our word just so much pedantic babbling.

No not at all.

Toastmasters International has just launched a new branding campaignfor the world-wide organizations and leadership skills are now on a equal level to to speaking skills. There’s a new slogan” Toastmasters International – Where Leaders Are Made.”

The world needs leaders who inspire and motivate others to help solve the global issues that befall us whether it’s to do with the economy or war or hunger.

This is the role of Toastmasters and it starts by keeping to our word around showing up and completing the task to the best of our abilities.

Your comments are always welcome on this blog.

The first year in Toastmasters for many of us was the most magical.

We marvelled at the quality of speeches we heard and wondered how we could ever be so accomplished.

Jobs like being the Toastmaster or chair for the evening seemed beyond us.

Even speaking for a minute or so during Table Topics was a challenge.

And the business meeting (especially at First Oakville) well…that was beyond belief and terrifying.

So here are some thoughts about how to get the most out of that most wonderful first year in Toastmasters.

1. Come to every meeting whether or not you are on the agenda. In this way you’ll be supporting your fellow members in the same way you’d like to be supported yourself. Besides you’ll learn something new every night.
2. Get a mentor. The VP of Education will assign one or you can ask for someone in particular but do so and do it early.
3. Volunteer to help on the Christmas or Charter Party committees or ask to be a counter at the next contest.
4. Come a few minutes early and make it a point to greet newcomers (even if this is only your second meeting as a Toastmaster) and walk around and introduce yourself to the club members as they arrive.
5. Ask the VP of Education to put you on the agenda for your ice-breaker as soon as possible. After all you came here to learn public speaking right?
6. Try to find a way to speak at every meeting. Volunteer for Table Topics or Speaking Out. Participate in the business meeting. Introduce a guest.
7. Make your own speaking schedule. I’d recommend doing a manual speech every two to three months if possible. In this way you’ll get your CTM in two years.
8. Go to the fall or spring district conference. Every Toastmaster should attend a district conference at least once.
9. Offer the best written evaluations of speeches that you can. Point out what impressed you. Offer a point of possible improvement. End with a positive supportive conclusion.
10. Consider running for office in your second year. Roles such as Sgt.-At-Arms, secretary and treasurer are perfect for new Toastmasters as you’ll learn there’s more to Toastmasters than just public speaking.

There are currently 18,568 members so if you want to have some fun go make a comment to the group.

You’ll hear no end of replies. Some of them are brilliant and some of the comments border on moronic.

For example there’s a big discussion on the raising of the dues payable to Toastmasters International. The whine of the complainers is overwhelming and don’t you dare suggest that maybe if some aren’t getting value out of their educational program then perhaps it’s time to move on. Good heavens. Why they would rather complain than do anything? Most of the comments are phrased in the form of “why doesn’t someone look into this or why doesn’t somebody do something? Oh god ain’t it awful!”

And if you do venture into the conversation, someone will be quick to point you that your comment doesn’t make sense or you’re being impolite.

Now as many of you know I coach men’s groups. Making a negative comment about someone else (It’s like back in kindergarten when the little blond girl would point her finger at you and say you made a bad smell in an effort to shame you for all time to come.) in the men’s group would inevitably lead to someone saying and what’s in this for you. The complaint would start up again by the alleged transgression and the group members would haul him back to what meaning this had for him because the issue is never with the other person.

This is one of the reasons to stay away from online discussion groups. You’re going to be communicating with people who use shame and deception unconsciously.

They are reacting to their own unconscious pain and projecting or lashing out.

Now I am not perfect. I should have warned you to be sitting down when I wrote this so if that’s not too much of a shock let me say neither are you and neither are the folks on the discussion groups. But there’s no sense in having a debate with someone who doesn’t understand how to communicate in a non-aggressive manner. Projections spoken out loud are a form of bullying.

So how do you deal with a bully? The worst thing you can do is try and correct their behaviour (unless you’re in a men’s group and door is barred) .  Now you’re fighting someone who is an expert fighter and you will get beaten up pretty good.

It’s a whole lot better and who lot safer to say “you win” and move on.