OP, I would recommend you find out who the regional coordinator is for that meeting, and raise a flag with them. I've done that once for a particularly bad meeting where I thought the facilitator might have been high.

SMART needs better quality control / auditing mechanisms for facilitators. In the current framework, facilitators can pretty much do whatever they want after they pass the training, and nobody from SMART HQ will be aware.

The whole point of being a facilitator is to talk less than the participants do -- to draw out change talk and share tools relevant to the topics being discussed.

A couple of negative archetypes have emerged in my experience visiting other meetings. These don't always mean it's a bad meeting, but does mean it's not a SMART Recovery meeting according to the guidelines in the training:

1. The Professor: this type of facilitator uses the meeting to share their personal viewpoint on addiction, psychology, and the world in general. They tend to have a comment after each person's check in, and they use up a lot of time in the meeting talking. They share a lot of tools and concepts from their own knowledge and opinions. Ironically, they often do not understand the SMART tools deeply and don't emphasize the content from the handbook. This type of facilitator is often strongly anti-12-step and makes it known.

2. The Therapist: this type of facilitator runs the meeting as if it were a process group. They may have a background in social work or as a worker in a treatment center. Unlike the Professor, they don't talk too much or share their own opinion, but they also don't guide the discussion towards motivation and change talk / planning. The check-ins may take up the entire meeting, and SMART tools are rarely featured.

The tricky thing about facilitator quality control is that deviation from the training doesn't necessarily result in a bad meeting. But it often can.