Can the chair, acting alone, remove nonmembers who are not disorderly from the hall?

[Alex Meed]

I can't tell whether the chair may, acting alone, compel a nonmember (other than a disorderly one) to depart, or whether this may only be required by a vote of the assembly.

For instance: "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 of the presiding officer." p. 648, ll. 17–21. This seems to grant this power to the chair acting alone.

However: "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—a motion of the latter nature being a question of privilege (19)." p. 644, l. 29, to p. 645, l. 1. This seems to limit the chair's power to remove nonmembers to "cases of disorder" only, and require the assembly to adopt a rule or motion to that effect in all other cases.

Further support to the latter theory is given by p. 95, ll. 28–30: "A motion to go into executive session is a question of privilege (19), and therefore is adopted by a majority vote." So it would seem that the chair may not order all nonmembers excluded except by order of the assembly.

So, which is it? May the chair order a nonmember or group of them, who is not causing disorder, to leave the meeting without a vote of the assembly to do so?

Edited October 29, 2019 at 01:46 AM by Alex M.

[Rob Elsman]

No. I wouldn't think so.

[Bruce Lages]

You can't read that sentence on p. 648, l.17-21 without reference to the sentence immediately preceding it: "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." So the sentence you quoted does indeed refer specifically to disorderly nonmembers. Removing a nonmember in other circumstances would be a decision of the assembly, since it would be a decision of the assembly that allows them to attend.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 10/28/2019 at 10:34 PM, Bruce Lages said:

You can't read that sentence on p. 648, l.17-21 without reference to the sentence immediately preceding it: "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." So the sentence you quoted does indeed refer specifically to disorderly nonmembers. Removing a nonmember in other circumstances would be a decision of the assembly, since it would be a decision of the assembly that allows them to attend.

So the only remaining question is whether the chair can remove a nonmember who is annoying but not disorderly.