Argument in a meeting

[Guest Vanessa]

I was in a meeting for an organization that uses Roberts Rules this past week. A disgruntled officer had submitted a resignation letter a few weeks prior which had scathing and direct attacks on a member of the body and she was demanding that it be read at the meeting. She was not on the agenda and a form letter had been sent to the body regarding her resignation. This former officer interrupted the meeting at its start demadning to be heard and that the letter be read in its entirety. The presiding officer informed her that her letter would be shared with teh Exec Board first since it had personal attacks so that the exec board could review it and then it would be read to the body at the following general meeting next month. This ex-officer proceeded to yell and speak over the presiding officer stating that she was out of order. It lead to members of the body making a motion that the letter be read and it was. The ex-officer also claimed that she had sent the letter in time for it to be read at the general meeting, however, the by-laws state that the letter must be dated 30 days prior to the meeting for it to be read and it was not. Who was wrong? And how do you handle a person that becomes beliigerent in a meeting and attacks the presiding officer? Could the presiding officer have simply stated that she was not on the agenda and her date of official resignation had already passed and that is it? (the letter stated that she was resigning as of 10/2 and the meeting was this week). BTW- the designated parliamentarian in the org did and said NOTHING and allowed this to go on for several minutes.

[Chris Harrison]

Who was wrong?

If the bylaws say that the letter must be dated 30 days prior to the meeting and it wasn't then the bylaws were violated though it would not constitute a continuing breach. In other words even though what was done may have been improper it would not be improper enough to render what was done invalid (RONR pp. 250-251).

And how do you handle a person that becomes beliigerent in a meeting and attacks the presiding officer?

The member could be subjected to discipline ranging from being censured to being expelled from the organization. See RONR pp. 644-648.

Could the presiding officer have simply stated that she was not on the agenda and her date of official resignation had already passed and that is it? (the letter stated that she was resigning as of 10/2 and the meeting was this week).

If the bylaws say that reading the letter is not permitted then the presiding officer should have said so. However, unless the bylaws say that a resignation is effective upon receipt of the letter or the date the letter states the resignation is effective she would stay in office until the resignation is accepted by whichever body the bylaws authorize to fill the vacancy (RONR pp. 289-292).

BTW- the designated parliamentarian in the org did and said NOTHING and allowed this to go on for several minutes.

Well the parliamentarian should not be addressing the assembly itself (unless called upon to do so by the presiding officer or assembly). However, he or she should have been quietly advising the presiding officer on how to handle the situation (although the presiding officer should have already known how to handle it procedurally and have never let it get that bad in the first place.

[Tim Wynn]

I was in a meeting for an organization that uses Roberts Rules this past week. A disgruntled officer had submitted a resignation letter a few weeks prior which had scathing and direct attacks on a member of the body and she was demanding that it be read at the meeting. She was not on the agenda and a form letter had been sent to the body regarding her resignation. This former officer interrupted the meeting at its start demadning to be heard and that the letter be read in its entirety. The presiding officer informed her that her letter would be shared with teh Exec Board first since it had personal attacks so that the exec board could review it and then it would be read to the body at the following general meeting next month. This ex-officer proceeded to yell and speak over the presiding officer stating that she was out of order. It lead to members of the body making a motion that the letter be read and it was. The ex-officer also claimed that she had sent the letter in time for it to be read at the general meeting, however, the by-laws state that the letter must be dated 30 days prior to the meeting for it to be read and it was not. Who was wrong? And how do you handle a person that becomes beliigerent in a meeting and attacks the presiding officer? Could the presiding officer have simply stated that she was not on the agenda and her date of official resignation had already passed and that is it? (the letter stated that she was resigning as of 10/2 and the meeting was this week). BTW- the designated parliamentarian in the org did and said NOTHING and allowed this to go on for several minutes.

See RONR (11th ed.), p. 454-456 and Chapter XX.

[Burke Balch]

If the letter whose reading was demanded contained personal attacks on a member, as stated, then it was out of order to read those attacks, just as it would have been out of order for the resigning officer -- or anyone else -- to make such personal attacks in a speech. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 392, ll. 12-95. Even when formal disciplinary proceedings are being initiated, charges cannot be made in a manner that assumes their accuracy before an investigating committee has been constituted: See p. 657, l. 30 to p. 658, l. 10.

The procedures for dealing with unruly guests and members are found on pages 644-49.

[Tim Wynn]

See RONR (11th ed.), p. 392, ll. 12-95.

Burke, does the paragraph in your book go on for 70 more lines than mine?

[Dan Honemann]

Burke, does the paragraph in your book go on for 70 more lines than mine?

Yes, he has the deluxe edition.

[Tim Wynn]

Yes, he has the deluxe edition.

I figured it couldn't be a typo, because I can't imagine a keyboard arrangement that would have a 9 anywhere near a 2.

[Burke Balch]

Of course, the citation should be p. 392, ll. 12-25. But we OUGHT to have put in 70 more lines, considering the appalling lack of civility in our society!