Genesis Posted February 15, 2018 at 05:14 AM Report Share Posted February 15, 2018 at 05:14 AM At a meeting of the General Assembly during which the board election occurred, a member who was unfamiliar with Robert's Rules interrupted the reporting of election results. In the minutes of that meeting, there is an asterisk next to the topic, "election of directors," and then, at the bottom of the page after the Secretary's signature, this reference, "John Doe raised his voice, repeatedly interrupting the Chair. The Chair rules John Doe's comments out of order and instructed him to be seated." The question is not whether John Doe was out of order, but if the reporting of this incident in the minutes as described above is proper. And, if not, how should this incident have been reported? Or should this incident have been left off the minutes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Geiger Posted February 15, 2018 at 05:24 AM Report Share Posted February 15, 2018 at 05:24 AM Take a look at p. 471 and pp. 646ff. TL;DR: Yes, if the chair "names" the offender, then the "naming" (and the words that led to it) should be entered into the minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted February 15, 2018 at 11:43 AM Report Share Posted February 15, 2018 at 11:43 AM I'm not sure that the procedure for naming the offender was followed. I think this incident should be left out of the minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted February 15, 2018 at 01:30 PM Report Share Posted February 15, 2018 at 01:30 PM Agreeing with HHH, it just sounds like the chair said to stop, not named the offender. Also, even if the procedure for naming the offender were used, it would go in the minutes where it belongs, not in a footnote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted February 15, 2018 at 03:37 PM Report Share Posted February 15, 2018 at 03:37 PM (edited) I think it is a close call, but I tend to agree with HHH & Joshua Katz. It is not clear to me that an offender was "named" in the sense that RONR considers discipline or such a breach of order that it should be entered in the minutes. I think it is best left out. See pages 471 and 646 re "naming" an offending member. Edited February 15, 2018 at 03:40 PM by Richard Brown Added last paragraph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genesis Posted February 15, 2018 at 04:57 PM Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2018 at 04:57 PM Thank you for your learned responses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Susie Posted February 17, 2018 at 02:33 PM Report Share Posted February 17, 2018 at 02:33 PM I'd like to suggest that this be documented SOMEWHERE, in case there is need for disciplinary steps later. Maybe: "Mr. X was reprimanded by the chair for being out of order during the meeting." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted February 17, 2018 at 02:42 PM Report Share Posted February 17, 2018 at 02:42 PM 6 minutes ago, Guest Susie said: I'd like to suggest that this be documented SOMEWHERE, in case there is need for disciplinary steps later. If you wish to document it, then follow the steps for naming the offender. Otherwise, it doesn't reflect actions taken in the meeting, and it's just gossip. The point is that a simple gavel rap and "that is out of order" is not the basis for later disciplinary action. If a person will not come to order when informed that his actions (not the person) are out of order, naming the offender becomes appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts