Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Closing meeting to non-members


Guest Larry

Recommended Posts

We will be meeting soon to remove an officer from his position in the assembly.

The meeting has been called as an open meeting (i.e., non-members may attend and observe).

A majority (I've counted) do not want non-members to attend during that discussion.

The Rules of Order address removing a particular person from the assembly -- but what about excluding all non-members?

As a second note: is the member being removed from office permitted to vote on the question of his removal? Our constitution requires 3/4 majority for removal, so the vote is significant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As soon as the subject comes up, a member of the assembly may interrupt and move that the assembly go into executive session. This is a main motion that requires a majority vote for adoption. It can be admitted as a question of privilege related to the rights of the assembly, if necessary. See RONR (10th ed.), pp. 92, 93, 222.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Move to go into "Executive Session" - that requires all non-members to leave (and the members who stay the keep the proceedings secret).

If you followed Chapter 20 in RONR to the letter, the member probably does not have the right to vote on his own removal. BUT, if you have your own "removal rules" in your bylaws, you will have to figure that one out for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As soon as the subject comes up, a member of the assembly may interrupt and move that the assembly go into executive session. This is a main motion that requires a majority vote for adoption. It can be admitted as a question of privilege related to the rights of the assembly, if necessary. See RONR (10th ed.), pp. 92, 93, 222.

Although there's no need to go into executive session in order to remove non-members and non-members may be invited to remain during the executive session.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Move to go into "Executive Session" - that requires all non-members to leave (and the members who stay the keep the proceedings secret).

I don't think it will be necessary for the members "to keep the proceedings secret" (especially the member who is being removed from office). I doubt that there will be a problem with what is said in the meeting later to be said outside the meeting. I'm just worried that it may be difficult to keep order if the non-members are present and that members may be able to speak more freely if only members are present, even if the non-members are later told what was said.

Some other questions pertaining to this (perhaps I should start a new thread):

1. After the reasons for removing the member from office have been presented, and the member states his response, is it in order for a member to call the question?

2. If the member being disciplined also wishes to have a non-member (a friend, not a legal representative) to speak on his behalf, would that come during his response, or during discussion which is open to members (after which time the non-member would leave)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it will be necessary for the members "to keep the proceedings secret" (especially the member who is being removed from office). I doubt that there will be a problem with what is said in the meeting later to be said outside the meeting. I'm just worried that it may be difficult to keep order if the non-members are present and that members may be able to speak more freely if only members are present, even if the non-members are later told what was said.

Some other questions pertaining to this (perhaps I should start a new thread):

1. After the reasons for removing the member from office have been presented, and the member states his response, is it in order for a member to call the question?

2. If the member being disciplined also wishes to have a non-member (a friend, not a legal representative) to speak on his behalf, would that come during his response, or during discussion which is open to members (after which time the non-member would leave)?

Were I in the chair, I would excuse the guests without a motion, under the rule of RONR (10th ed.), p. 92, ll. 32-34, as soon as the disciplinary matter arose, unless the assembly specifically adopted a motion to be in public session.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it will be necessary for the members "to keep the proceedings secret" (especially the member who is being removed from office).

It is highly advisable to hold the disciplinary meeting in executive session, or the assembly may find itself in a heap of legal trouble. See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 630, line 21 - pg. 631, line 4.

1. After the reasons for removing the member from office have been presented, and the member states his response, is it in order for a member to call the question?

Since you are not following the trial procedure in RONR but a customized procedure from your Bylaws, it would seem to me this is likely a main motion and the Previous Question would be in order, although I would exercise caution in using it given the circumstances. The Previous Question requires a 2/3 vote for its adoption.

2. If the member being disciplined also wishes to have a non-member (a friend, not a legal representative) to speak on his behalf, would that come during his response, or during discussion which is open to members (after which time the non-member would leave)?

It is up to the assembly to determine when the non-member may be present or speak. The assembly is not required to permit him to be present or speak at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...