Robert's in US Court of Appeals Decision

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 12/6/2022 at 5:55 PM, laser158689 said:

Can exercising your rights under RONR be seen as "disruptive" to the Chair (and outside parties, such as members of law enforcement)?  Many of the actions in 62 would appear "disruptive" without the context found there.

On 12/6/2022 at 6:22 PM, Richard Brown said:

I find the opinion very troublesome. I hope to come back and add more after rereading the opinion.

@Jim SlaughterI’m wondering: is there a video of that portion of the meeting available? 

On 12/6/2022 at 6:49 PM, Josh Martin said:

Simply exercising your rights under RONR, in and of itself, should not be seen as "disruptive" to the chair. If it is, the assembly should get a new chair.

What may or may not be seen as disruptive to outside parties, such as members of law enforcement, is not a parliamentary issue. What is relevant as a parliamentary matter is whether the behavior is disruptive to the assembly.

On 12/6/2022 at 8:36 PM, Greg Goodwiller, PRP said:

This discussion is all certainly relevant, but an important point from the case is that any local, regional (county), state, or federal law supersedes RONR. So when it comes to "disruptive" behavior in a meeting, it behooves us to know how our particular civil authorities interpret that, and what actions are available and/or mandated in response.

On 12/7/2022 at 11:48 AM, Josh Martin said:

Certainly, state law supersedes RONR in any respects where they are in conflict.

But it's not clear to me that the court's ruling in fact means that it was proper for the chair to remove the member on his own authority, simply that the member had no legal remedy in the event that the chair did so.

Indeed, the court specifically avoids the question of whether the commission acted in accordance with its rules.

"Regardless of whether the Rules were followed or not, Burton disturbed the meeting and therefore violated state law, providing the Officials with probable cause to arrest him."

It would seem to me that, as a parliamentary matter, the assembly can and should order a member removed from a meeting only through the procedures specified in RONR or the commission's rules.

I am a bit troubled by this opinion as well. The court does not seem to do a good job of articulating the underlying standard for distinguishing between a member participating within his rights and one who is causing a disturbance. It says that a disturbance is “[a]ny act causing annoyance, disquiet, agitation, or derangement to another, or interrupting his peace,” or “an interruption of peace and quiet; a violation of public order and decorum”.

It then says: "Under this broad definition of disturbance, [the plaintiff] caused “annoyance” and “agitation” when he continued talking despite [the chair's] telling him he was out of order three separate times, as well as after [a police officer] informed [him] that [he] would be removed if he continued to speak out of turn. This conduct also “interrupt[ed the] peace and quiet” of the meeting, and “violat[ed the] public order and decorum.” … [the officials] arrested [him] because he “disturbed the ability of [the] public bod[y] to conduct their business in an orderly fashion,” … because he refused to let [the chairperson] move forward with the meeting…"

This makes it seem as though the chair has unfettered discretion to "move forward with the meeting", as though a member speaking is not part of a meeting. Obviously the court understands that a member needs to obey the chair's directions to stop speaking, or that if the member had a right to object to such direction, he did not object in a proper manner. But it does not give much basis for these assertions; it states them as though self-evident.

I would think that if a body has agreed to conduct its business according to Robert's Rules of Order, then what RONR has to say about how a meeting should be conducted would have at least some bearing on whether a member is interfering with the orderly conduct of business and whether the chair's orders were legitimate. Even if not, I think there should have been more focus on the power of the chair to rule that a member is being disorderly, at least quoting the exact rule granting such authority. I think the lower court decision in this case did a slightly better job of articulating why the police officers had reason to make the arrest:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15618715625663375215

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/7/2022 at 5:02 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I am a bit troubled by this opinion as well.

Even if this be so, this is not the place to say so or to discuss it.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 12/7/2022 at 6:40 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Even if this be so, this is not the place to say so or to discuss it.

No problem. I'll just take this over to my copyediting discussion group.

[puzzling]

On 12/7/2022 at 4:48 PM, Josh Martin said:

RONR explicitly provides the option for the chair to do exactly this.

"The offending member can be required to leave the hall during the consideration of his penalty, but he must be allowed to present his defense briefly first. A motion to require the member's departure during consideration of the penalty—which may be assumed by the chair if he thinks it appropriate—is undebatable, is unamendable, and requires a majority vote." RONR (12th ed.) 61:16

overlooked that one (or interpretated it wrongly)

thanks

[J. J.]

After looking at the process on tape, the parts of the process I found troubling was this:

1.  The chair should have been clearer in the initial ruling that the member's comments were out of order because they were not related to the issue.  (The chair was correct in that ruling.)

2.  The chair should not have unilaterally removed the member, but named him.

The member, if he had wished to properly exercise his rights of membership, should have appealed the ruling of the chair and not continued speaking in violation of the ruling. 

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

Unfortunately many public bodies which are to follow RONR are woefully ignorant of it, and in this case it led to a lawsuit.  This situation could have been easily de-escalated easily by a good chair.  Things didn't get raucous until the chair threatened to have him removed from the meeting, and at that point the audience got outraged.

I once watched a mayor threaten to have a council member thrown out of the meeting because while a motion was pending, the council member wanted to move an amendment.  The mayor apparently believed that once a motion has been made, they must immediately go to a vote, so the mayor just shouted down the other council member and called for the vote to be taken.  (No, debate had not been properly closed.)  The member who wanted to make an amendment had no idea how to handle it, either, so he was ill-equipped to assert his rights.  The city attorney just sat there and said nothing while a situation developed which could have led to a lawsuit.  It was horrifying.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/9/2022 at 4:03 AM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

The city attorney just sat there and said nothing while a situation developed which could have led to a lawsuit.

Never ask a barber if you need a haircut, nor a surgeon if you need an operation.