Breach of decorum and consequence

[Guest Peter Deg]

At a recent meeting member A, speaking in debate, referred to another member by name saying "I don't feel like Member B was operating in good faith."  The moderator warned the member not to impugn the motives of other members. Member A concluded her remarks.  Member B was not in attendance but subsequently learned of the breach of decorum.  Member B wants to know why the organization tolerates such remarks and why Member A is not being held accountable.  Since the meeting has since adjourned, what can Member B do? Can she ask the society to censure Member A with a motion or would she need to proffer charges? Or does the language in RONR 12th ed. 61:22 mean that it is too late to discipline the member- namely this language which states  "However, the only way in which a member may be disciplined for words spoken in debate is through the procedure described in 61:10-18, which may be employed only promptly after the breach occurs."

[Josh Martin]

On 5/1/2023 at 5:09 PM, Guest Peter Deg said:

Since the meeting has since adjourned, what can Member B do?

At this point, not much.

On 5/1/2023 at 5:09 PM, Guest Peter Deg said:

Can she ask the society to censure Member A with a motion or would she need to proffer charges?

Yes, she can ask the society to censure Member A with a motion. Formal disciplinary procedures are not required.

On 5/1/2023 at 5:09 PM, Guest Peter Deg said:

Or does the language in RONR 12th ed. 61:22 mean that it is too late to discipline the member- namely this language which states  "However, the only way in which a member may be disciplined for words spoken in debate is through the procedure described in 61:10-18, which may be employed only promptly after the breach occurs."

It is, indeed, too late to discipline the member.

A motion to censure, however, is simply an expression of the society's opinion of disapproval. As a result, a motion to censure may be adopted outside of disciplinary procedures. Therefore, in my view, a motion to censure would still be in order.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/1/2023 at 6:09 PM, Guest Peter Deg said:

Member B wants to know why the organization tolerates such remarks and why Member A is not being held accountable.

If I were in Member B's shoes I might want to know why as well. 

But having not been present I might have assumed or at least hoped that the "reprimand," if it can be called that, from the chair was delivered with a level of sternness appropriate to the offense.

Or I might be miffed enough to move for censure, although I did not witness the offense and those who did took no further action at the time.  I might be just as miffed at them as at Member A.

[Guest Peter Deg]

Thank you both!  It now turns out, that rather than naming one Member B as "not operating in good faith", what Member A actually said was that she felt like "the board of directors was not operating in good faith".  Subsequently, the vice chair of the directors, Member C, said in response that he needed to respond because the chair of the Board, Member B, was an honorable person who wouldn't act in bad faith.  I posted this separately and it appears that perhaps Member A is OK because he did not refer to a person by name but to the board?

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, everybody is okay at this point because no timely action was taken at the time.

As to whether anyone's actions are worth of censure, that's entirely up to the result the vote if someone moves to censure them.  I'm certainly not capable of making that judgment.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/3/2023 at 11:44 AM, Guest Peter Deg said:

Thank you both!  It now turns out, that rather than naming one Member B as "not operating in good faith", what Member A actually said was that she felt like "the board of directors was not operating in good faith".  Subsequently, the vice chair of the directors, Member C, said in response that he needed to respond because the chair of the Board, Member B, was an honorable person who wouldn't act in bad faith.  I posted this separately and it appears that perhaps Member A is OK because he did not refer to a person by name but to the board?

In my view, such a statement is still a violation of the rules of decorum, particularly RONR (12th ed.) 43:21.

"When a question is pending, a member can condemn the nature or likely consequences of the proposed measure in strong terms, but he must avoid personalities, and under no circumstances can he attack or question the motives of another member. The measure, not the member, is the subject of debate." RONR (12th ed.) 43:21

It seems to me that a suggestion that a member is "not operating in good faith" is certainly an attempt to "attack or question the motives of another member." The fact that the statement referred to a group of members rather than an individual member does not, in my view, make the statement acceptable.

But that is a separate question from whether the assembly should adopt a motion to censure. That is a matter which I leave to the assembly's judgment.