Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

BLACKLISTING (help NEEDED!!)


nick

Recommended Posts

Dear All,

Our society maintains an internal list of researchers who fail to give an excused absence prior to our annual conference. People who appear on this list are then prohbited from presenting a paper at a subsequent conference.  A member of our society who is also the head of one of our affiliate societies recently asked for our internal listing.  The person wanted to use the list to ban that same group of speakers.

In reading the Robert's Rules of Order, I came to conclusion that the researchers on our internal list fell under the category of temporary "censure" and that as such, in accordance with Section XX, §63, circulating information about disciplinary actions taken can only be practiced "to the extent required for the protection of the society [...] Neither the society nor any of its members has the right to make public the charge of which an officer or member has been found guilty, or to reveal any details connected with the case. To make any of these facts public may constitute libel." (p. 655).

For that reason, I declined to share this information. My other reason for declining the member's request is that we recently had a case where a presenter was errantly placed on this internal list.  In response to my not sharing the list, the member wrote that I was misapplying the obert's Rules of Order.  Is that the case?

Any help you all could give would be VERY MUCH APPRECIATED!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be (too) hard-nosed about this but...

Presumably there is no "right" to give papers at conferences spelled out in your bylaws,  this becomes an administrative matter which the society can straighten out by adopting (or rescinding) appropriate Standing Rules - see p. 18.

If your bylaws deny members (other) rights for non-attendance at meetings, I trust the parameters are carefully set out in those bylaws.

Consider:

Do the bylaws spell out the nature of the jeopardy for "non-attendance".  And how do you define and track "attendance"?  Showing up?  On time?  (How late is OK?)  Staying awake for the entire meeting?  Not leaving early?  How "early” is too early? Signing in?  How do you tell if someone signs in another person's name?  Or neglects to sign in but is there anyway?  How do you track all this?  

RONR has no "attendance" requirements, thus avoiding all these questions, and many others.

An "internal list" sounds rather like the TSA's "no fly" lists, and we know how useful, fair, and reliable those are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Jstackpo,

 

Thank you for your reply. Perhaps I should explain more clearly.  The list is only keep for researchers who have agreed to present a paper at a scientific conference and then fail to show up at all, without any advanced notice prior to the event; AND without giving reason for their absence after the event.  Presenters are informed that failure to give advanced notice of their absence will result in their not being able to attend the very next conference.  The reason for the prohibition is to put a stop to people claiming on their resumes to have presented a paper at a conference when in fact they did not. Aside from this unethical practice, the failure to alert the Society of an absence in time also means that the Society is left ot pay for facilities (e.g. a room, AV equipment, personnel, etc.) which are not used. Unfortunately, we have found that a few people have made a practice of this behaviour.  To put a stop to it, we now keep an internal list of this repeated no.shows. My question is whether or not my interpretation of RONR (see above) is correct or not.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!

Frequent Flyer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick;

Your reasons for "punishing" the conference no-shows are entirely, well, reasonable.  But they are, I gather, still Administrative rules, not backed up by your bylaws.

Since RONR makes no mention of "attendance requirements" in any context (other than that of obtaining a quorum or special voting requirements at business meetings, or legislatures with legal power to obtain it), you won't find any backing in RONR either for or against your conference attendance policy (which should be adopted as a "Standing Rule" by the association - was it?), nor for or against your choice to deny the list to an affiliate society..

Your RONR citation relates to formal disciplinary procedures which it doesn't sound as though you have gone through. 

I also think you have redefined "censure" away from its common meaning of merely an expression of disapproval, but without any additional punitive measures.

So here's how to clear this up:  at your next business meeting, propose an additional standing rule (if you already have some) that codifies the use(s) of your "no talk" list with respect to affiliate organizations.  Get the society to set the rules, not you alone. That gets you off the hook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the list creates a class of people who no longer have "good standing", i.e., that some kind of "right" has been lost.

Since a right has been lost, then I agree that the list (to be "put on the list") would be considered some kind of "disciplinary" action.

But consider this: Since the member has had NO opportunity to be put on trial, with evidence, and with witnesses, the member has NOT been given an opportunity to defend himself against this (possibly) erroneous "punishment."

So, I do agree that sending out a list which has not been vetted (i.e., where the member was NOT given a chance to challenge the mistakes made on the list), would harm the member's good name.

My conclusion: Do not send the list out to anyone. -- The list is not an authentic list, but a mere compilation of names which have not gone through a fair process of verification.

Any document which will trigger a legal libel lawsuit is a document you should not willy-nilly broadcast to any and all inquiries.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Potzbie,

 

Thank you very much indeed for your reply.  Your reasoning is completely inline with my original thinking.  I very much appreciate your sharing your expertise. My concern was not simply triggering an charge of libel.  I also feel very strongly that a person having violated rules in one society does not warrant his/her being blacklisted by another, albeit affiliate society...Especially when one considers the fact that the affiliate society would like to consider rejecting a presenter BEFORE he/she has even submitted an abstract for possible acceptance.  That would seem to be unethical and entirely undermine the concept of blind peer review.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, POTZBIE!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not altogether sure I look at this as a disciplinary matter.  I'm not altogether sure I don't, either.  :huh:

It seems to me it can also be looked at as similar to a qualification to hold office, but in this case it's "qualification to present a paper".  The "rule" (if it is indeed a rule... it may just be a custom) seems to say, in essence, "In order to be qualified to present a paper, you  must not have screwed up your last opportunity to present a paper".

Regardless of whether it is "discipline", there certainly seems to be an absence of due process.

So, in the end, I agree that it is probably best not to release the names.  I'm just not real sure why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while you are working through all this, ask the person who claimed (in your original posting) "In response to my not sharing the list, the member wrote that I was misapplying the Robert's Rules of Order.  Is that the case?" to show YOU the rule that he/she contends you are violating or "misapplying".

I'll bet he can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Brown,

 

Thank you very much for your response to my question regarding Blacklisting.  It is a very difficult issue; and I want to make sure that my organization has a fair, measured, and ethical response.  I will definitely take steps to make sure that there is a transparent process for dealing with speakers who fail to give advanced notice of their non-attendance in the future.  I will also make sure that whatever the organization decides  is included in our Bylaws.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND INPUT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nick said:

Hi Jstackpo!

Can I just say that that last response was BRILLIANT!!!  Thank you SO MUCH!!  At the end of the day, I simply want to come up with an ethical, professional, and considerate response!

Thank you for those kind words, but, as regular readers of these pages find out, we, not just me, use that "Oh, yeah!?!  Show me!" response quite a lot around here.

Here's some boilerplate:

A good rule of thumb for situations like this is to ask the person who is making "firm" (but seemingly unlikely) assertions about rules that, he says, are in RONR (or elsewhere) to actually show you the rule.  9 out of 10 times, he won't be able to because the rule just won't be there.

Besides, RONR doesn't deal in ethics, or being considerate - just rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jstackpo!

Yes, I am finding that out.  On the one hand, I have to admit that it is VERY time-consuming to constantly go through the RONR to find out what exactly the rules are and then write yet another report to the same person who keeps taking issue with decisions made and votes taken.  On the other hand, I have developed a great deal of fondness for the RONR.  I am only hoping that formal steps will not have to be taken to formally discipline this member.  I have already had to issue two forrmal warnings for disruptive behavior during online and face-to-face meetings.  Hats off to all of you who deal with this on a regular basis.  AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR EXPERT OPINION.  TRULY!!!

Frequent Flyer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, nick said:

 write yet another report to the same person who keeps taking issue with decisions made and votes taken. 

Give that person a copy of

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will really need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link. Or in your local bookstore.

Too late for a Valentines Day gift, maybe Washington's birthday?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...