School Board Member refuses to come to order

[Guest David]

We have a board member that frequently "grandstands" and the chairman cannot bring this member to order. We're talking about 30-40 minute ravings.

The question is can a motion be made and voted on to recess when this member goes on a tear, or is this member considered to "have the floor" until through?

The real question is how to get an state elected official to behave!

[Trina]

If the chair cannot bring the member to order, the assembly can go so far as to eject the member from the meeting (and, in fact, can go even further in imposing penalties for bad behavior).

'Although the chair has no authority to impose a penalty or to order the offending member removed from the hall, the assembly has that power.' (RONR 11th ed. p. 646 ll. 26-28). The subsequent sentences are also worth reading.

Those are option available under the rules in RONR. Whether those options are constrained by the fact that the offending member is a 'state elected official' is something we probably can't determine here.

edited to add: no, don't recess (technically you can't make a motion to do that anyway, when another has the floor) -- address the offensive behavior directly!

[J. J.]

The chair can rule him out order, and another be recognized to move the motion to Recess. If a question is pending it will be privileged. If adopted, everyone else can get up, turn their backs on the member, and walk from the room, while he's still ranting.

The member will look like an idiot.

[Guest Edgar]

The chair can rule him out order, and another be recognized to move the motion to Recess.

While that might be appropriate in some situations, even this situation, one wouldn't want to get in the habit of letting one member's misbehavior bring a meeting to a halt.

[Burke Balch]

Is there a limit in the rules on the length of speeches? (The limit under RONR for "a nonlegislative body or organization that has no special rule" is 10 minutes; RONR[11th ed.], p. 387, ll. 29-34. If there is no limit, then the "elected official" is perfectly entitled to filibuster, as long as the speech remains germane, does not include personal attacks, and otherwise complies with the rules.

If there is a limit, and the official refuses to yield the floor when that limit is reached (or otherwise violates the rules of speaking), the proper procedure is that described on pages 644-48.

[Guest David]

There is no special rule, so the 10 minute rule would apply. The problem is that the member will not recognize that either. This member claims repeatedly that as an elected official she must have her voice and can not be shut down.

[Chris Harrison]

There is no special rule, so the 10 minute rule would apply. The problem is that the member will not recognize that either.

I bet if the Board orders her removal from the meeting once or twice that she will learn her lesson and follow the rules. However, you should check the Board's governing documents and with a lawyer who is familiar with any applicable laws to see how to do this if those rules supersede RONR pp. 644-648.

This member claims repeatedly that as an elected official she must have her voice and can not be shut down.

She seems to have an overinflated sense of her own importance.

[Gary Novosielski]

There is no special rule, so the 10 minute rule would apply. The problem is that the member will not recognize that either. This member claims repeatedly that as an elected official she must have her voice and can not be shut down.

Not so fast. A School Board is, in some very important ways, considered to be a "legislative body". So the member may be correct.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Not so fast. A School Board is, in some very important ways, considered to be a "legislative body". So the member may be correct.

In my opinion, a school board is not a legislative body as that term is used in RONR (11th ed., p. 8).

[J. J.]

While that might be appropriate in some situations, even this situation, one wouldn't want to get in the habit of letting one member's misbehavior bring a meeting to a halt.

Largely because this is a public body, if not a legislative one, I would suggest this in this case. Public image is perhaps the most important factor.