Twitter During Denominational Board Meetings?

Last March, we had the spring board meeting of the General Assembly Mission Council of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. (The Kronicler is vice-chair of this body. During the plenary, there are forty members, about fifteen corresponding members, and a few dozen staff, press, and other observers ... easily more than 100 people in the room.) Twitter entered the mix for the first time at this meeting.

At least five board members were tweeting during plenary, including yours truly (though I mostly read tweets without sending much) and our esteemed moderator (Twitter extraordinaire) Bruce Reyes-Chow. A few staff people were in the mix and others weren't at the meeting. Tweets appeared every few minutes ... not every few seconds.

At one point, I chaired a portion of the meeting that went into closed session. At the beginning of that time, I reminded folks that what was being discussed was confidential and that they should not cellphone, text, email, tweet, or carrier pigeon the contents of this meeting to others outside it. Whether everyone agreed they needed to cease communications or tweeting altogether, I most appreciated the need to be confidential.

I know some members of the GAMC object to the idea of Tweeting at all during a GAMC meeting. The feeling is that people, especially board members, should be giving their undivided attention to the proceedings. Yet others perceive this as an opportunity for outsiders to the meeting to participate in the event ... it informs and includes others in the Church's work. I've heard other reasons, pro and con.

So here is my question to you: Should people, especially board members, tweet during the meeting of a deliberative body? Why or why not?

Comments

[Joe Schmoe]

Let's oppose cars and go back to horses and buggies too.

[Steve]

Well, I Twittered during my Special Committee meeting. Not a lot but a little bit. Why? Maybe because I could? But I also used it to tell BRC that the Special Committee said hi. But for several of the Special Committee members it was a way to stay in contact with members who were not there or to stay connected to the "real world" outside the committee.

[Justaservant]

Well, I speak as one who has emailed and worked during meetings I've attended. Nevertheless, I have to say that I would come down on the "No" side. Why? The only "pro" that you share regards "broadening participation." That may very well be a legitimate aim; however, I don't think that's the responsibility of the board members during the meeting. If other attendees in the room want to tweet, fine; if Board members want to blog about it afterward, fine; but -- call me old-fashioned -- since a Board member is often the only one with voice and vote (read, "statutory influence") within the body, I feel that, when that body is in session, the member has a responsibility both to the Board and to its constituency to be fully present throughout the session. I can imagine how I might receive a tweet from a Board member representing my interests and wanting to respond, "Hey -- tell me about it later - for now, pay close attention to make sure you don't miss anything that might affect me!"

My $.02...

[Dave Hackett]

Yes, I think tweeting during a meeting probably increases one's processing of the contents of the meeting (unless it's totally off topic). Off topic tweeting is a no-no, because it truly does distract and doesn't let the person fully attend to the meeting and decisions at hand. At most governing board meetings people whisper to their neighbors for clarification or processing; tweeting is doing the same. On topic tweeting, I think in the end, actually will increase comprehension and recall. It's a way to process externally, and for all of us external processors it can be a godsend.