Chairman excludes rank and file member from board meeting

[Guest Loose]

The bylaws are mum on the subject of whether rank and file members may attend board meetings. Our state's Freedom of Info Act, however, provides that members may attend if we're talking "public agency board," which this is.

The Chairman wants to exclude me, a rank and file member, based on notion I was disruptive at the last board meeting.

I gather that the Chairman has the right to define disruptive any way he wants and can make the decision unilaterally - but I still have the right to appeal, do I not? And the right to appeal at the board meeting? Or am I barred from participation at board meetings no matter what, since I am not a board member?

[Guest Edgar]

And the right to appeal at the board meeting? Or am I barred from participation at board meetings no matter what, since I am not a board member?

Your presence at a board meeting is entirely up to the board.

[Guest Edgar]

Your presence at a board meeting is entirely up to the board.

Well, subject to that Freedom of Info thing you mentioned.

[George Mervosh]

Well, subject to that Freedom of Info thing you mentioned.

The bylaws are mum on the subject of whether rank and file members may attend board meetings. Our state's Freedom of Info Act, however, provides that members may attend if we're talking "public agency board," which this is.

The Chairman wants to exclude me, a rank and file member, based on notion I was disruptive at the last board meeting.

I gather that the Chairman has the right to define disruptive any way he wants and can make the decision unilaterally - but I still have the right to appeal, do I not? And the right to appeal at the board meeting? Or am I barred from participation at board meetings no matter what, since I am not a board member?

Find me a statute that allows you to be disruptive. And yes, he can unilaterally toss out disruptive non-board members, but his decision can be appealed by other Board members.

(edited to add "non-board")

[Guest Guest]

Find me a statute that allows you to be disruptive. And yes, he can unilaterally toss out disruptive members, but his decision can be appealed by other Board members.

I asked permission to speak and was given it. The Chairman didn't like what I had to say. I told him he owed the members an annual treasurer's report - now 7 months late. So now I'm barred from attending the board meetings.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, it seems like it may have graduated to a legal issue.

If in fact this is a public agency, then merely saying things the agency doesn't like is probably not grounds for being judged disruptive. I know of at least one case where a superintendent of schools was found to have violated the First Amendment by silencing someone who liked to come to board meetings and flog the same dead horse month after month. The guy won a chunk of change.

But since I'm not a lawyer, and do not play one on the internet, I'll just point out that legal issues are beyond the scope of this forum. Public agencies usually have rules, and are subject to statutes, that aren't covered in RONR.

[Chris Harrison]

I would recommend you contact a lawyer who is familiar with your state's FOIA law. My state has an advisory council who will give advice/opinions on FOIA and maybe your state has one as well.

[SaintCad]

I concur with the legal issue but it raises a question. If the member had raised it as a point of order, could it still be considered disruptive? I could see how telling the chair what they need to do outside of proper procedure (motion/debate/vote or a point of order/personal priviledge etc.) would disrupt a meeting even if done in a respectful tone but what if a member (assuming he is authorized to make motions) said, "I move that the Chair present the latest annual treasurer's report." and as part of debate pointed out it was due 7 months ago. Would that still be considered disruptive?

[Guest Edgar]

If the member had raised it as a point of order, could it still be considered disruptive?

Except that the "member" wasn't a member (of the body that was meeting).

[Bruce Lages]

While agreeing with the previous posters who suggested that there are (or may be) legal issues involved, I would just point out that, while RONR does give the chair alone the right to have disruptive non-members removed from a meeting, I'm not sure whether this power can be used at one meeting for conduct occurring at a previous meeting, or to impose a continuing ban on attendance. Would anyone read p.644, ll. 29-33 to mean that the chair alone, in cases of disruption by a non-member, could impose a continuing ban?

[Chris Harrison]

Would anyone read p.644, ll. 29-33 to mean that the chair alone, in cases of disruption by a non-member, could impose a continuing ban?

I believe that given the wording of the language cited that it could be reasonable to interpret the language to mean that if a nonmember was disruptive at a prior meeting that the chair could:

1) rule that the person can no longer attend meetings, or

2) rule at any meeting that the nonmember tries to attend that due to the disruption at a prior meeting that he or she cannot stay, or

3) in effect impose a suspension on the nonmember (ruling that he or she cannot attend for x number of meetings or until specific conditions are met such as the nonmember writing a letter of apology to the assembly).

However, any of those rulings would be subject to an Appeal (by a member of the body which is meeting) and the assembly can still refuse to allow the nonmember to attend even if the chair believes he or she has taken their punishment and is willing to allow him or her to stay..

[David A Foulkes]

While agreeing with the previous posters who suggested that there are (or may be) legal issues involved, I would just point out that, while RONR does give the chair alone the right to have disruptive non-members removed from a meeting, I'm not sure whether this power can be used at one meeting for conduct occurring at a previous meeting, or to impose a continuing ban on attendance. Would anyone read p.644, ll. 29-33 to mean that the chair alone, in cases of disruption by a non-member, could impose a continuing ban?

I think the last six words of the first sentence say yes.

[Shmuel Gerber]

While agreeing with the previous posters who suggested that there are (or may be) legal issues involved, I would just point out that, while RONR does give the chair alone the right to have disruptive non-members removed from a meeting, I'm not sure whether this power can be used at one meeting for conduct occurring at a previous meeting, or to impose a continuing ban on attendance. Would anyone read p.644, ll. 29-33 to mean that the chair alone, in cases of disruption by a non-member, could impose a continuing ban?

I wouldn't read it that way. As stated on lines 22-24, "A society has the right to determine who may be present at its meetings and to control its hall while meetings are in progress; . . ." The first aspect (to determine who may be present at its meetings) is the prerogative of the society, and only the second aspect (to control its hall while meetings are in progress) is at all within the purview of the chair.

Therefore, when it says (lines 29-34), "Nonmembers, on the other hand—or a particular nonmember or group of nonmembers—can be excluded at any time from part or all of a meeting of a society, or from all of its meetings. Such exclusion can be effected by a ruling of the chair in cases of disorder, or by the adoption of a rule on the subject, or by an appropriate motion as the need arises . . .", I think that both the exclusion and the ruling can be effected by the chair only in cases of disorder. The chair cannot take the opportunity of ruling in a case of disorder to effect an exclusion from meetings at which there has not been any disorder.

[David A Foulkes]

"Nonmembers...can be excluded at any time from ....all of its (a society's) meetings. Such exclusion can be effected by a ruling of the chair in cases of disorder.....

If a non-member can be excluded from all of a society's meetings by the ruling of a chair in cases of disorder, aren't we talking about all of the future meetings after the one at which the disorder occurs, thus an exclusion from meetings where there has not yet been any disorder?

[Shmuel Gerber]

"Nonmembers...can be excluded at any time from ....all of its (a society's) meetings. Such exclusion can be effected by a ruling of the chair in cases of disorder....."

If a non-member can be excluded from all of a society's meetings by the ruling of a chair in cases of disorder, aren't we talking about all of the future meetings after the one at which the disorder occurs, thus an exclusion from meetings where there has not yet been any disorder?

Well, yeah, if the rule means what I said it doesn't mean, then the chair can do what I said he couldn't do.

[David A Foulkes]

I guess I'm looking at this as a case of the general rule vs the specific rule.

In general, a society may exclude non-members, from part or all of a meeting or all meetings, for any reason (being disorderly; for wearing a sleeveless tee shirt; because it's Wednesday; because they are non-members). In specific, a disorderly non-member may be excluded not only by the society (by rule or motion) but also by the chair's ruling alone.

The exclusionary rule includes both part or all of a meeting, as well as all of the society's meetings (and here we must understand this refers to future meetings). I don't detect any distinction between how the exclusion is effected (by the society or by the chair) with regards to "all of its (future) meetings", limiting this extreme case only to the society.

[Dan Honemann]

I guess I'm looking at this as a case of the general rule vs the specific rule.

I, too, am looking at this as a case of the general rule vs the specific rule. As a general rule, Shmuel will be right. In this specific instance, Shmuel is right.

[Guest JFW]

In general, a society may exclude non-members, from part or all of a meeting or all meetings, for any reason (being disorderly; for wearing a sleeveless tee shirt; because it's Wednesday; because they are non-members). In specific, a disorderly non-member may be excluded not only by the society (by rule or motion) but also by the chair's ruling alone.

Mr. Foulkes may not be entirely correct but seems to come closer than anyone:

"An assembly has the right to protect itself from annoyance by nonmembers, and its full authority in this regard - as distinguished from cases involving disorderly members - can be exercised by the chair acting alone. The chair has the power to require nonmembers to leave the hall, or to order their removal, at any time during the meeting,and the nonmembers have no right of appeal from such an order by the presiding officer." [RONR 11th ed., p.648, l.14-21]

[David A Foulkes]

Mr. Foulkes may not be entirely correct but seems to come closer than anyone:

"An assembly has the right to protect itself from annoyance by nonmembers, and its full authority in this regard - as distinguished from cases involving disorderly members - can be exercised by the chair acting alone. The chair has the power to require nonmembers to leave the hall, or to order their removal, at any time during the meeting,and the nonmembers have no right of appeal from such an order by the presiding officer." [RONR 11th ed., p.648, l.14-21]

Well, I do appreciate the support, but this citation doesn't address the actual question of whether the chair can unilaterally "ban" a non-member from future meetings beyond the one at which the (alleged) disorderliness occurred. But thanks nonetheless.

[George Mervosh]

Well, I do appreciate the support, but this citation doesn't address the actual question of whether the chair can unilaterally "ban" a non-member from future meetings beyond the one at which the (alleged) disorderliness occurred.

SG addressed it definitively, in post 13, in his last two sentences especially.

[tctheatc]

"An assembly has the right to protect itself from annoyance by nonmembers, and its full authority in this regard - as distinguished from cases involving disorderly members - can be exercised by the chair acting alone. The chair has the power to require nonmembers to leave the hall, or to order their removal, at any time during the meeting,and the nonmembers have no right of appeal from such an order by the presiding officer." [RONR 11th ed., p.648, l.14-21]

Well, I do appreciate the support, but this citation doesn't address the actual question of whether the chair can unilaterally "ban" a non-member from future meetings beyond the one at which the (alleged) disorderliness occurred. But thanks nonetheless.

I think it does, and does so in the negative. The chair (in this cite) can act alone for the assembly to protect it from annoyance, and the examples listed seem pretty clear that they relate to this meeting where this annoyance is occurring. There's nothing in there about prevention. I see the previously cited text similarly. The disorderly persons can be excluded by the assembly, or by the chair only if there IS disorder. It doesn't say he can rule so in order to prevent disorder.

Forgive me if I am oversimplifying, but that's how it reads to this novice, anyway.

[J. J.]

I think it does, and does so in the negative. The chair (in this cite) can act alone for the assembly to protect it from annoyance, and the examples listed seem pretty clear that they relate to this meeting where this annoyance is occurring. There's nothing in there about prevention. I see the previously cited text similarly. The disorderly persons can be excluded by the assembly, or by the chair only if there IS disorder. It doesn't say he can rule so in order to prevent disorder.

Forgive me if I am oversimplifying, but that's how it reads to this novice, anyway.

I think you are stating it correctly, but I also think there is another issue. If each meeting is, in fact, a separate session, the chair's ruling in one meeting cannot tie the hands of a future meeting. The chair could, obviously, rule again that the member mere presence was disruptive (I would question the propiety of that), but that decision could be appealed.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think it does, and does so in the negative. The chair (in this cite) can act alone for the assembly to protect it from annoyance, and the examples listed seem pretty clear that they relate to this meeting where this annoyance is occurring. There's nothing in there about prevention. I see the previously cited text similarly. The disorderly persons can be excluded by the assembly, or by the chair only if there IS disorder. It doesn't say he can rule so in order to prevent disorder.

"The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve disorder."

Richard J. Daley 1968, Chicago