Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
Hellacious IEP meeting
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marguerite" data-source="post: 382173" data-attributes="member: 1991"><p>On the subject of the meeting continuing under these circumstances:</p><p>If your presence is needed for this meeting (as I believe it is, or it's not a valid IEP meeting) then from the point where your attention was elsewhere and you were outside trying to calm her down, the meeting officially was halted. Any decisions taken while you were not present, are not valid decisions and are not endorsed by you. They need to know this and the remainder of the meeting needs to be rescheduled and held again.</p><p></p><p>And if they had already made up their minds, then again, they do not 'get' what an IEP meeting is for, nor do they understand how it is supposed to work.</p><p></p><p>I was head of a committee where a couple of members were trying to make trouble, and especially trying to get rid of me. The committee was made up of the two troublemakers, three members who supported me enthusiastically, and two others who did not know me well and were easily swayed. A meeting was requested by the troublemakers and was held at the workplace of one of these troublemakers. But not all members of the committee were notified with sufficient notice as to the time and place of the meeting. It was obvious to me that I was being set up - the only members unable to attend due to lack of notice, were my supporters. So I was there, unsupported, while the two troublemakers were becoming increasingly aggressive. I am certain the aim was to make me angry so I would alienate the two new members who were fence-sitters. So I made a huge effort to stay calm and also not react with fear, when the troublemaker slammed his fist down onto the desk in front of me. Instead, I announced at that point, "I have just determined that there was insufficient notice given for this meeting, to all members. Therefore I have just realised that this meeting is unconstitutional. I cannot even declare this meeting closed, since it should never have been declared open. Any decisions and discussion we have had, are void and invalid. I have a lot of work to do at home. Goodbye." And I left.</p><p></p><p>Of course, the other troublemaker began emailing everybody (including people not on the committee, who should not have been told this sort of stuff, it was breaching confidentiality) and announcing that I had "stormed out of a properly constituted meeting". I had to continue to quietly stand my ground and sent to all those who had been contacted in this way, a note explaining why I had WALKED out (disrespect shown; nothing being achieved even with an informal discussion; meeting found to be unconstitutional anyway) and the inappropriateness for them to have been dragged into it. </p><p></p><p>Too often, people get emotional in this situation or at these sort of meetings. Or they don't follow through sufficiently, especially if they feel intimidated. With this meeting, the aim was clearly to intimidate me and push me into resigning in tears. Or make me look so bad, I would get voted out. It was very naive. But too often, this is how people behave. And it backfires.</p><p></p><p>Anyone who deals with formal meeting procedure on a regular basis learns how it should be done. I have seen meetings dragged off the rails by people who dislike official procedure, but whenever there are problems, conflict issues or a power-hungry person trying to drive things where they want and not where the meeting attendees really agree, then falling back on insistence of proper meeting procedure will save your bacon.</p><p></p><p>In this case - I think it's time to say, "The proper meeting procedure was not followed from the point where the panic attack started. Any decisions made after that point were not made officially through the process of the formal IEP meeting and I require this meeting to be re-convened so the necessary decisions can be taken officially."</p><p></p><p>If they come back and say, "Oh no, you are wrong, we did finish the meeting, here are the minutes," then dig out the regulations which say it's not official if you are not there, and point this out. Find the law and use it. Draw a line on the minutes with a red pen and make it clear - "the meeting was halted prematurely at this point."</p><p></p><p>Also, the meeting before the meeting is not acceptable, if they are merely using the IEP meeting to tell you what they have already decided. They can have things they want to advise you, or to suggest, but all decisions have to be agreed on at the IEP meeting. How do they know you haven't got vital input that could change how they see things?</p><p></p><p>Go sort them out.</p><p></p><p>Marg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marguerite, post: 382173, member: 1991"] On the subject of the meeting continuing under these circumstances: If your presence is needed for this meeting (as I believe it is, or it's not a valid IEP meeting) then from the point where your attention was elsewhere and you were outside trying to calm her down, the meeting officially was halted. Any decisions taken while you were not present, are not valid decisions and are not endorsed by you. They need to know this and the remainder of the meeting needs to be rescheduled and held again. And if they had already made up their minds, then again, they do not 'get' what an IEP meeting is for, nor do they understand how it is supposed to work. I was head of a committee where a couple of members were trying to make trouble, and especially trying to get rid of me. The committee was made up of the two troublemakers, three members who supported me enthusiastically, and two others who did not know me well and were easily swayed. A meeting was requested by the troublemakers and was held at the workplace of one of these troublemakers. But not all members of the committee were notified with sufficient notice as to the time and place of the meeting. It was obvious to me that I was being set up - the only members unable to attend due to lack of notice, were my supporters. So I was there, unsupported, while the two troublemakers were becoming increasingly aggressive. I am certain the aim was to make me angry so I would alienate the two new members who were fence-sitters. So I made a huge effort to stay calm and also not react with fear, when the troublemaker slammed his fist down onto the desk in front of me. Instead, I announced at that point, "I have just determined that there was insufficient notice given for this meeting, to all members. Therefore I have just realised that this meeting is unconstitutional. I cannot even declare this meeting closed, since it should never have been declared open. Any decisions and discussion we have had, are void and invalid. I have a lot of work to do at home. Goodbye." And I left. Of course, the other troublemaker began emailing everybody (including people not on the committee, who should not have been told this sort of stuff, it was breaching confidentiality) and announcing that I had "stormed out of a properly constituted meeting". I had to continue to quietly stand my ground and sent to all those who had been contacted in this way, a note explaining why I had WALKED out (disrespect shown; nothing being achieved even with an informal discussion; meeting found to be unconstitutional anyway) and the inappropriateness for them to have been dragged into it. Too often, people get emotional in this situation or at these sort of meetings. Or they don't follow through sufficiently, especially if they feel intimidated. With this meeting, the aim was clearly to intimidate me and push me into resigning in tears. Or make me look so bad, I would get voted out. It was very naive. But too often, this is how people behave. And it backfires. Anyone who deals with formal meeting procedure on a regular basis learns how it should be done. I have seen meetings dragged off the rails by people who dislike official procedure, but whenever there are problems, conflict issues or a power-hungry person trying to drive things where they want and not where the meeting attendees really agree, then falling back on insistence of proper meeting procedure will save your bacon. In this case - I think it's time to say, "The proper meeting procedure was not followed from the point where the panic attack started. Any decisions made after that point were not made officially through the process of the formal IEP meeting and I require this meeting to be re-convened so the necessary decisions can be taken officially." If they come back and say, "Oh no, you are wrong, we did finish the meeting, here are the minutes," then dig out the regulations which say it's not official if you are not there, and point this out. Find the law and use it. Draw a line on the minutes with a red pen and make it clear - "the meeting was halted prematurely at this point." Also, the meeting before the meeting is not acceptable, if they are merely using the IEP meeting to tell you what they have already decided. They can have things they want to advise you, or to suggest, but all decisions have to be agreed on at the IEP meeting. How do they know you haven't got vital input that could change how they see things? Go sort them out. Marg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
Hellacious IEP meeting
Top