BabbsJohnson

If the organization has By-Laws, it might say there what is needed to remove a member of such an organization. 

On 8/24/2019 at 1:02 PM, J. J. said:

It was a legitimate question, at least as I would see it. 

I ask only because I expect others to want to suspend the rules of decorum, not because I do.

1 hour ago, Weldon Merritt said:

So why did you ask it?

I thought it had an answer that might contain more than affirming the option to censure. 

On 8/22/2019 at 9:21 PM, Joshua Katz said:

At this point, I do not believe any of these questions remain unaddressed. Telling different stories doesn't change the fundamental answers. It just makes your posts read like a diary entry. Do you have a question that has not been answered?

See? Question was pointless and should have not been asked.

On 8/22/2019 at 9:59 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Again, is there anything different in this post than in your many others? These appear to be multiple posts giving the same scenario. The answers aren't changing despite your hoping (as you've said previously) that they do so. You've been advised to consult an attorney. That advice hasn't changed, either.

I, for one, don't see the purpose in these repeated posts. 

It was redundant and not wanted or needed. People said the question was pointless and not needed, and no help available.

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

An assembly could adopt a special rule of order that would remove some or all of the rules relating to decorum.  The rules relating to decorum could be suspended. 

I would question the wisdom of doing so, but the assembly could do it. 

That is unfortunate.

21 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

If they are suspended, is a person behaving well, with decorum, in violation of the rules?

Does suspending the rules of decorum create a replacement rule that supposes those in the assembly are to act in opposition to those rules, in order to be in compliance?

1 minute ago, Richard Brown said:

Babbs, aka Nosey, aka strange bunch of  symbols, didn't you promise us months ago, after you edited a post so as to make it unrecognizable and the responses meaningless, that you would not  do it again?  So, why did you completely delete this post?  This sort of thing does not go over well on this  forum.

It was apparent it was redundant, and therefore not needed or helpful.

28 minutes ago, J. J. said:

In theory, the rules relating to decorum can be suspended. 

Can they be permanently suspended, as a special rule of order, or ?

I saw a parliamentarian comment in a blog post that the rules of decorum cannot be suspended, but I’m not finding the entry in RONR that explicitly says they cannot be suspended.

 It does say on page 264 line 6 & 7 that rules protecting a basic right of the individual member cannot be suspended, so I don’t know if decorum is included in the individual rights of a member.

On 8/21/2019 at 9:18 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Okay, preachers too.

😂

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

I you are asking, "Can a board adopt a motion 'That ________ be censured,'" the answer is yes.  Such a motion would express an opinion and not involve a finding of guilt.

.

.

If in a meeting, a member makes remarks, statements, or arguments about what they think another member believes... is such speech considered "personal remarks" or questioning the motives of a member (or both?) if not part of a pending motion?

18 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

Dive into RONR Chapter XX.    (Take a deep breath first!)

I’ve tried.

It is truly challenging.

Recently, a board member shoved another board member while returning from a meeting recess. 

Is this a matter that would be handled by police, the board, or both? The police were not called when it happened, but can the board remove the member for this kind of behavior? The by laws say nothing as far as discipline.

8 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

If you had to make a choice what would you keep and what would you discard; this bundle of never-ending excuses and sociopathic behavior, or your contribution to the well-being of the society?

I’m not sure I understand your question.

Are you asking if I could dispose of the person who has cried a few times, would I?

7 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Are you talking about removed from the meeting or from the board?

Someone crying loudly, wailing, could violate decorum, if it disturbs the assembly (p. 394, ll.12-22).

From the board.

I don't think she was trying to disturb anyone, but just the same. She always has some excuse.

My dog just died. My mom just died. My husband left me. I lost my job. I lost my car. I have cancer...

It's always something. 

13 hours ago, Chris Harrison said:

It would definitely be rude but whether it violated decorum depends on the circumstances.  I can think of cases where while such an inquiry would be very tasteless it would (if properly asked) be a valid question which would not (in my opinion) violate decorum.  In addition, the Board should be wary about removing someone simply because of him or her having a disability because that can cause them a whole new set of problems beyond what they currently may be dealing with. 

Perhaps.

If one of my fellow board members had broken down crying in a recent meeting, and when apologizing for it, told us she had a health issue that was adversely affecting her, would it be a violation of decorum if I asked aloud if she could be removed from the board for having such a health issue?

2 hours ago, Chris Harrison said:

I would not be surprised if the Bylaws or a rule adopted by the Board or General Membership grants the organization's employees the authority to take certain types of actions without having to go to the Board or General Membership for permission.  Directing the lawyer write a letter to someone is likely one of those actions.

And if no such power has been granted?

4 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

From a legal standpoint, there might (or might not) be a legal remedy.  From a parliamentary procedure standpoint, it is improper to disclose what was said in an executive session.

We don't do legal here.

I guess in the consideration that Executive Session is only being used for its intended purpose, the idea it all stays secret is no issue.

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

No.

Still no.

Yes.

So far as RONR is concerned, if it happened in executive session, it needs to be kept secret, unless the body votes to lift secrecy. There are no exceptions.

Yes, this is correct.

I don’t know. This is a legal question.

That seems ridiculous.

if abuse of a person, or a tarnishing of their name happens in Executive, in my opinion, it should not have to be kept secret, 

if it was about someone else? That’s one thing...but if it was about themselves, and so it’s their own “information”... especially since it had already been discussed previously elsewhere...

Seems wrong.

Also, what if the use of RONR was discussed in Executive... a question of how to use point of order for instance...now it becomes a secret topic?

Nothing of it can be repeated?

That did happen, and the idea that now its top secret it ludicrous.

They did not adopt a rule. The lawyer told them they should tell me if this restriction, and they said to put that in the letter as well. 

The reason why I don’t think they could adopt such s rule is because RONR doesn’t deal with communications of this kind, there is nothing in the by laws that covers this, and there’s no authority given anywhere for this kind of restriction.  

19 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

I strongly suggest that, because the reason I asked is that I'm quite sure you'll find the answer in those other threads and I don't see any reason it will be different here.

I guess sometimes, I keep expecting a loophole to emerge that somehow was not apparent before.