Chris Harrison Posted November 17, 2011 at 06:28 PM Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 at 06:28 PM Suppose that an organization's bylaws permit the calling of Special Meetings but do not have any provisions for discipline so the procedures in Chapter XX would be followed. At a Special Meeting (not called for disciplinary reasons ) a member gets disorderly and the assembly decides that discipline is warranted. To what level of discipline can the assembly impose on the member in a Special Meeting when the call of the meeting had nothing to do with discipline?I would imagine that the member in theory could be expelled from membership at a Special Meeting but was curious what y'all think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted November 17, 2011 at 06:30 PM Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 at 06:30 PM Suppose that an organization's bylaws permit the calling of Special Meetings but do not have any provisions for discipline so the procedures in Chapter XX would be followed. At a Special Meeting (not called for disciplinary reasons ) a member gets disorderly and the assembly decides that discipline is warranted. To what level of discipline can the assembly impose on the member in a Special Meeting when the call of the meeting had nothing to do with discipline?I would imagine that the member in theory could be expelled from membership at a Special Meeting but was curious what y'all think.I would agree; at a special meeting, discipline of a member who is disrupting the meeting's proceedings is business incidental to them, and so can be transacted at a special meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted November 17, 2011 at 06:53 PM Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 at 06:53 PM I would imagine that the member in theory could be expelled from membership at a Special Meeting but was curious what y'all think.I'd be inclined to think that removal from the room would be the most you could do. It has the advantage of solving the immediate problem with the fewest parliamentary shenanigans (such as denying due process). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted November 17, 2011 at 08:22 PM Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 at 08:22 PM I concur with Edgar - remove the person from the room and continue with the meeting. Later another meeting could be called to deal with more discipline if it felt like that was acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted November 17, 2011 at 08:30 PM Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 at 08:30 PM I concur with Edgar - remove the person from the room and continue with the meeting. Later another meeting could be called to deal with more discipline if it felt like that was acceptable.But if you did that wouldn't you have to go through the trial process in all of its glory rather than dealing with the member at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Schafer Posted November 17, 2011 at 10:33 PM Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 at 10:33 PM If the penalty is imposed promptly after a serious breach of the assembly's rules on decorum, no trial is necessary. (RONR 11th ed., p. 646, l. 28-33.) When considering the penalty to be assessed, expulsion is an option. (p. 647, l. 14-20.)Since an assembly always has the right to control its hall during a meeting (p. 644, l. 23-24), if the assembly determines that expulsion is warranted, then the member is expelled, even during a special meeting called for a different purpose.Or consider it from a different perspective: If an assembly has the right to impose some types of penalty for a breach of decorum but not others, why is there no distinction given in the penalties listed on p. 647, l. 10-20? The only thing that I see where expulsion is treated differently is that it requires a two-thirds vote. (p. 649, l. 1-2.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted November 17, 2011 at 10:49 PM Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 at 10:49 PM I'd be inclined to think that removal from the room would be the most you could do.Had I thought a bit longer, I think I might have said, "I'd be inclined to think that removal from the room would be the most you should do".I'm not saying that RONR doesn't permit expulsion from membership at a special meeting (called for some other purpose), I'm only saying that it seems like it should be the very last resort, reserved for only the most egregious behavior and only when expulsion can't wait until the next regular meeting. Think of it as the "nuclear option". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted November 18, 2011 at 12:29 AM Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 at 12:29 AM Why would immediate, summary expulsion be any more extreme a penalty for the most egregious behavior at a special meeting, than at a regular meeting, or at any other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 18, 2011 at 03:01 AM Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 at 03:01 AM Or consider it from a different perspective: If an assembly has the right to impose some types of penalty for a breach of decorum but not others, why is there no distinction given in the penalties listed on p. 647, l. 10-20?I don't think anyone is suggesting that the assembly is limited in the penalties it can impose on members for decorum. The question revolves around whether there is any limit on what forms of discipline the assembly can impose during a special meeting not called for the purpose. I'm inclined to agree with Edgar that the society should not impose a penalty greater than removal from the rest of the meeting, but I see nothing in RONR which would actually prohibit the society from doing so. The fact that the penalty is incidental to the violation of decorum doesn't change based on what the penalty is.Why would immediate, summary expulsion be any more extreme a penalty for the most egregious behavior at a special meeting, than at a regular meeting, or at any other?It's no more extreme from the perspective of the member who is expelled, but I imagine the absentees who were supporters of the member will feel that the procedure was unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted November 18, 2011 at 01:42 PM Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 at 01:42 PM Suppose that an organization's bylaws permit the calling of Special Meetings but do not have any provisions for discipline so the procedures in Chapter XX would be followed. At a Special Meeting (not called for disciplinary reasons ) a member gets disorderly and the assembly decides that discipline is warranted. To what level of discipline can the assembly impose on the member in a Special Meeting when the call of the meeting had nothing to do with discipline?I would imagine that the member in theory could be expelled from membership at a Special Meeting but was curious what y'all think.I think the same rules and levels available in a regular meeting apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted November 18, 2011 at 01:52 PM Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 at 01:52 PM I don't think anyone is suggesting that the assembly is limited in the penalties it can impose on members for decorum. The question revolves around whether there is any limit on what forms of discipline the assembly can impose during a special meeting not called for the purpose. I'm inclined to agree with Edgar that the society should not impose a penalty greater than removal from the rest of the meeting, but I see nothing in RONR which would actually prohibit the society from doing so. The fact that the penalty is incidental to the violation of decorum doesn't change based on what the penalty is.It's no more extreme from the perspective of the member who is expelled, but I imagine the absentees who were supporters of the member will feel that the procedure was unfair.The fact that a meeting at which a breach of order by a member occurs is a special meeting rather than a regular meeting seems to me to be entirely irrelevant in this connection.I see no basis at all for saying that, simply because the meeting is a special meeting, the assembly should not impose a penalty greater than removal from the hall for the rest of the meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted November 18, 2011 at 03:59 PM Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 at 03:59 PM Suppose that an organization's bylaws permit the calling of Special Meetings but do not have any provisions for discipline so the procedures in Chapter XX would be followed. At a Special Meeting (not called for disciplinary reasons ) a member gets disorderly and the assembly decides that discipline is warranted. To what level of discipline can the assembly impose on the member in a Special Meeting when the call of the meeting had nothing to do with discipline?I would imagine that the member in theory could be expelled from membership at a Special Meeting but was curious what y'all think.The fact that a meeting at which a breach of order by a member occurs is a special meeting rather than a regular meeting seems to me to be entirely irrelevant in this connection.I see no basis at all for saying that, simply because the meeting is a special meeting, the assembly should not impose a penalty greater than removal from the hall for the rest of the meeting.Advanced Discussion at its finest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted November 18, 2011 at 04:04 PM Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 at 04:04 PM Advanced Discussion at its finest!Hey, post #11 was in direct response to post #9, not #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted November 18, 2011 at 06:12 PM Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 at 06:12 PM Hey, post #11 was in direct response to post #9, not #1.I'm just trying to get you to declare that by now Chris H. surely qualifies as an "experienced parliamentarian" for purposes of initiating discussions in the RONR Forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted November 18, 2011 at 07:39 PM Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 at 07:39 PM I'm just trying to get you to declare that by now Chris H. surely qualifies as an "experienced parliamentarian" for purposes of initiating discussions in the RONR Forum. Of course he does, and I suspect he didn't post this question in the other forum because he didn't think that it did.Anyway, "Advanced Discussion at its finest!" is a phrase which, if I recall correctly, has heretofore been used only with tongue firmly implanted in cheek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted November 18, 2011 at 07:48 PM Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 at 07:48 PM Anyway, "Advanced Discussion at its finest!" is a phrase which, if I recall correctly, has heretofore been used only with tongue firmly implanted in cheek. Yes, as one of the first recipients of the phrase, I was convinced that's what kind of phrase it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted November 18, 2011 at 07:49 PM Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 at 07:49 PM Of course he does, and I suspect he didn't post this question in the other forum because he didn't think that it did.Anyway, "Advanced Discussion at its finest!" is a phrase which, if I recall correctly, has heretofore been used only with tongue firmly implanted in cheek. Aww, shucks. It is good to know that I am considered one of the Brotherhood (which of course has sisters as well). I put my question in General Discussion because I didn't think it was necessarily cerebral enough to belong in the Advanced Discussion forum (though it did garner a bit more discussion than I expected). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.