Dilatory and disruptive behaviors

[LSG]

If during monthly meetings of an organization several members continue to make dilatory motions thus causing all members to become enraged and for the chair to lose order of the meeting.  Can the chair simply adjourn the meeting?

[Gary Novosielski]

No.

The chair should not place dilatory motions before the assembly at all. Rather than becoming enraged, the members should calmly and quietly move that the disruptive members be removed for the remainder of the meeting.

The chair may not be up to the task of presiding.  It requires a cool head.

Edited June 1, 2023 at 04:38 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Josh Martin]

On 5/31/2023 at 9:13 PM, LSG said:

If during monthly meetings of an organization several members continue to make dilatory motions thus causing all members to become enraged and for the chair to lose order of the meeting.  Can the chair simply adjourn the meeting?

No, absolutely not.

The only instances in which the chair may unilaterally adjourn the meeting are as follows:

• When the meeting has completed its entire order of business and, when the chair asks if there is any (further) new business, no member responds.
• When the assembly has previously scheduled a time for adjournment and that time has been reached.
• When there is an emergency, such as a fire or riot, and it would be dangerous to those present to take the time for a formal vote on adjournment. (The situation described here seems more irritating than dangerous, so this does not seem sufficient.)

In all other cases, the meeting may only be adjourned by adoption of a motion to do so, which generally requires a majority vote for adoption.

The proper means for dealing with members repeatedly making dilatory motions are found in RONR (12th ed.) 39:1-4, 61:6-21.

"Any main or other motion that is frivolous or absurd or that contains no rational proposition is dilatory and cannot be introduced. As further examples, it is dilatory to obstruct business by appealing from a ruling of the chair on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, by demanding a division (29) on a vote even when there has been a full vote and the result is clear, by moving to lay on the table the matter for which a special meeting has been called, by constantly raising points of order and appealing from the chair's decision on them, or by moving to adjourn again and again when nothing has happened to justify renewal of such a motion. By use of such tactics, a minority of two or three members could bring business to a standstill.

It is the duty of the presiding officer to prevent members from misusing the legitimate forms of motions, or abusing the privilege of renewing certain motions, merely to obstruct business. Whenever the chair becomes convinced that one or more members are repeatedly using parliamentary forms for dilatory purposes, he should either not recognize these members or he should rule that such motions are not in order—but he should never adopt such a course merely to speed up business, and he should never permit his personal feelings to affect his judgment in such cases. If the chair only suspects that a motion is not made in good faith, he should give the maker of the motion the benefit of the doubt. The chair should always be courteous and fair, but at the same time he should be firm in protecting the assembly from imposition." RONR (12th ed.) 39:3-4

In summary, those procedures would involve:

• At first, the chair should generally assume good faith on the part of members.
• If members persist in making dilatory motions, however, the chair can and should rule such motions out of order, or even refuse to recognize those members, if necessary.
• If even this is unsuccessful and members, for instance, begin shouting out motions without being recognized, further procedures may be in order, which would involve:
  • Calling the member to order.
  • If this is repeatedly unsuccessful, the chair may "name" the member, ordering the Secretary to take notes on what has occurred, and putting the question to the assembly on what penalty should be imposed on the member - which may involve, for instance, removing the member from the hall for the duration of the meeting.

Although it may also be helpful if you could provide some examples of the "dilatory" motions which are being made.

[Rob Elsman]

I have to wonder why @Gary Novosielski thinks it is necessary to eject the offenders from the meeting hall. I am more a subscriber to the notion of graduated punishment.  In this particular case, I would be more inclined to recommend the chair, after several admonitions, name the offender. It seems to me that the assembly should first try to correct the fault by suspending the convicted's right to make motions for the remainder of the meeting. If this punishment is sufficient to protect the rights of the assembly, I see no reason why the convicted cannot remain in the meeting and otherwise participate.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/1/2023 at 10:17 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I have to wonder why @Gary Novosielski thinks it is necessary to eject the offenders from the meeting hall. I am more a subscriber to the notion of graduated punishment.  In this particular case, I would be more inclined to recommend the chair, after several admonitions, name the offender. It seems to me that the assembly should first try to correct the fault by suspending the convicted's right to make motions for the remainder of the meeting. If this punishment is sufficient to protect the rights of the assembly, I see no reason why the convicted cannot remain in the meeting and otherwise participate.

I didn't mean to imply that ejection should be the first choice of action.  But the OP seemed to imply that things had gotten badly out of hand at every meeting.  I fully subscribe to the graduated discipline process.  The section 47:14 Suggestions for inexperienced presiding officers can be very useful for chairs that aren't used to handling tough situations.  With a good understanding of the rules, it may be surprising how quickly things can be brought back under control.

[LSG]

Thank you all for you very helpful answers.  I will try to explain in more detail what has been happening.  Keep in mind I am a novice at Parliamentary procedure, have not taken any classes and hold no certifications.  you probably already gathered that from my question 😊.  Below is an outline of the situation:

- In January the chair was duly re-elected receiving 65% of the vote.  The 45% members whose person was not elected have been enraged ever since. (The Central Committee has 105 voting members, and thus roughly about 20 people from the minority vote have stated they will continue to disrupt meetings until she quits or is removed at their next convention in March of 2024.

-Having not realized this was going on, I told her I could volunteer as her Parliamentarian for a monthly meeting but did warn that I only know the simple basics of running the meeting and how to run elections of officers).  Much has changed since March as I have studied quite a bit and feel like I have read the book in it’s entirety.  The silver lining is I am enjoying learning and am now going to take some classes and study in order to become more proficient. (Sorry, this was probably unnecessary background).

- In her last meeting a motion was made to amend the agenda.  However, the motion would have gone against her constitution and I advised her to rule the the motion out of order in which she did).  After that all control was lost and the group just kept making out of order motions.  After being there for over two hours I had to leave as I had to pick up a child.  I honestly thought that it was a good time to leave as the only item left was new business.  Unfortunately after I left a motion under new business was made to elect a standing committee.  I would have advised that to be out of order as the standing committees are listed in her constitution.  She also ruled it out of order and the members motioned to override the chair and the chair adjourned without calling for a motion.  However, the meeting had gone way over the time to adjourn that was listed on the approved agenda and at no point was a motion made to extend the meeting beyond that time so I think she may be okay with her ruling.

-  I am trying now to outline the process for her in order to move forward and be able to conduct the business of the organization.  I have also told her that she needs to hire a certified Parliamentarian as it does her no good to have someone inexperienced try to advise her.  Unfortunately she has been unable to find one that is willing to do the job. (This is a county political party so I can certainly see why.).

Hopefully this helps explain things a bit better and I apologize for the lengthiness.  I truly appreciate your help and am thankful I found this forum.  

Ona side note, if you have recommendations on the best courses to take I would welcome any suggestions.

 

[Joshua Katz]

On 6/1/2023 at 7:27 PM, LSG said:

In January the chair was duly re-elected receiving 65% of the vote.  The 45% members whose person was not elected have been enraged ever since.

I've heard rumors of situations where a candidate does not win and their supporters become enraged and even violent.

On the other hand, how large is this organization?

On 6/1/2023 at 7:27 PM, LSG said:

I am trying now to outline the process for her in order to move forward and be able to conduct the business of the organization.

There is a sizeable contingent within the organization that would rather ignore the rules than have this person as chair. It's not clear to me how to "move forward" from there by making use of rules. Rules are for organizations whose members care about following them and want orderly conduct of business. Like some others I could mention, these members prefer disorder and chaos. I'm not sure there's a parliamentary solution for that.

[LSG]

Oh my goodness!  You literally said almost verbatim what I said to the chair today.  It’s a disaster and now the state executive committee is going to remove her.  That’s a whole different story that does not have any parliamentarian solution.  I believe the entire organization will just have to fail on it’s own merits.  At any rate the silver lining is that I am reading and learning the rules  and find it very interesting.  Even if I don’t have the opportunity to ever be an actual parliamentarian I love the organization of the rules and how well they actually work in circumstances with reasonable people.  I am excited to continue to learn.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/1/2023 at 8:32 PM, Joshua Katz said:

I've heard rumors of situations where a candidate does not win and their supporters become enraged and even violent.

Yes, I'm shocked, shocked to hear of voters who won't accept the result of the election.  After all, isn't this a political party?  Don't they all believe in democracy? 🗽

Edited to add:

Oh, on second reading, maybe it isn't a party.  I guess I just assumed.

Edited June 2, 2023 at 04:35 AM by Gary Novosielski
add

[Josh Martin]

On 6/1/2023 at 7:27 PM, LSG said:

- In January the chair was duly re-elected receiving 65% of the vote.  The 45% members whose person was not elected have been enraged ever since. (The Central Committee has 105 voting members, and thus roughly about 20 people from the minority vote have stated they will continue to disrupt meetings until she quits or is removed at their next convention in March of 2024.

I don't think this substantively changes things, although I originally imagined this was around two or three people. With 20 people, it will be more difficult, but the appropriate procedures remain the same.

On 6/1/2023 at 7:27 PM, LSG said:

In her last meeting a motion was made to amend the agenda.  However, the motion would have gone against her constitution and I advised her to rule the the motion out of order in which she did).

Could you clarify whether the motion to amend the agenda somehow conflicted with the constitution, or whether the motion that the members sought to add to the agenda conflicted with the constitution?

In the latter case, I don't think it's correct that amending the agenda would be out of order. But when the motion actually comes up in the agenda and is made, the motion could then be ruled out of order.

On 6/1/2023 at 7:27 PM, LSG said:

After that all control was lost and the group just kept making out of order motions.

No further examples are provided, so I'll have to take your word for it. As noted above, I would suggest the chair first rule the motions out of order, but after it becomes clear the members are acting for purely dilatory purposes, it would be appropriate for the chair to refuse to recognize the members and, if necessary, put the question to the assembly on a penalty to impose on a disruptive member.

On 6/1/2023 at 7:27 PM, LSG said:

Unfortunately after I left a motion under new business was made to elect a standing committee.  I would have advised that to be out of order as the standing committees are listed in her constitution.

Yes, this is correct.

"If certain standing committees are enumerated in the bylaws, no standing committee aside from those enumerated can be established without amending the bylaws, unless the bylaws also include a provision authorizing the creation of additional standing committees (see also 56:44–48)." RONR (12th ed.) 50:9

On 6/1/2023 at 7:27 PM, LSG said:

She also ruled it out of order and the members motioned to override the chair and the chair adjourned without calling for a motion.  However, the meeting had gone way over the time to adjourn that was listed on the approved agenda and at no point was a motion made to extend the meeting beyond that time so I think she may be okay with her ruling.

Thank you for these additional facts. I am in agreement that if the assembly has adopted a time for adjournment and that time has been reached (let alone exceeded), then the chair can and should declare the meeting adjourned without a motion, unless the assembly votes to extend the time for the meeting.

On 6/1/2023 at 7:27 PM, LSG said:

-  I am trying now to outline the process for her in order to move forward and be able to conduct the business of the organization.  I have also told her that she needs to hire a certified Parliamentarian as it does her no good to have someone inexperienced try to advise her.  Unfortunately she has been unable to find one that is willing to do the job. (This is a county political party so I can certainly see why.).

My advice would be for the chair to thoroughly study the following sections of RONR (12th ed.):

• 39:1-4 (Dilatory Motions)
• 47:14-19 (Suggestions for Inexperienced Presiding Officers)
• 61:6-18 (Dealing with Offenses in a Meeting)

[LSG]

On 6/1/2023 at 7:32 PM, Joshua Katz said:

I've heard rumors of situations where a candidate does not win and their supporters become enraged and even violent.

On the other hand, how large is this organization?

There is a sizeable contingent within the organization that would rather ignore the rules than have this person as chair. It's not clear to me how to "move forward" from there by making use of rules. Rules are for organizations whose members care about following them and want orderly conduct of business. Like some others I could mention, these members prefer disorder and chaos. I'm not sure there's a parliamentary solution for that.

 

On 6/1/2023 at 11:18 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

 

@Joshua Katzyes, unfortunately that happened in a very big public way and now that has trickled down to be the norm.  Those that allegedly were violent in the rumored situation you are referring are similar to what is going on within this particular political party.  Almost as if they are justifying tyranny for liberty.  This paricular organization has roughly 100 or so voting members and if I recall correctly the chair received 63 votes in the re-election vs. 105.  I completely understand your comparison and maybe the rumors are causing others to feel they can simply ignore the results of an election.  So, the question is how does it stop?  

[LSG]

@Josh Martin Your question about amending the agenda is interesting.  As the Parliamentarian for the evening (I use the title Parlimentarian for myself very lightly as I do not carry any credentials for such position and therefore should not be referred to as such, but that was the role I filled) Having said that, I’m happy to hear that I advised the chair correctly,  I told the chair to allow for the amended agenda as I thought it was appropriate.  However, when the actual motion was presented I advised the chair that it was out of order because it went against the constitution. 

Last, thank you for the advice to the chair.  I’ll continue to provide her with information.

I appreciate the responses and am trying to provide facts and detail but it is difficult without talking about what most likely started this in may different areas.  However, that would be for another forum 😊

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

On 6/3/2023 at 12:11 AM, LSG said:

So, the question is how does it stop?  

One thing I've often said as a parliamentarian is that my advice is to not jump into a river. I'm not sure, if you don't listen, that I can help you get out. Norms are like that. Or they're like glasses, easier to keep together than to put back together. I don't know how any organization can pull itself into democratic shape once it passes the line.

We can look to history. By far the most common way for nations that fall out of democratic norms to make their way back is foreign intervention. It doesn't sound like your superior body is going to intervene on the side of respecting democratic outcomesl.

When it's a party we're talking about, it seems to me that the only "solution" is for it to fail, badly, and for a new party with a similar or complementary ideology to form.

[Josh Martin]

On 6/3/2023 at 12:27 AM, LSG said:

Your question about amending the agenda is interesting.  As the Parliamentarian for the evening (I use the title Parlimentarian for myself very lightly as I do not carry any credentials for such position and therefore should not be referred to as such, but that was the role I filled) Having said that, I’m happy to hear that I advised the chair correctly,  I told the chair to allow for the amended agenda as I thought it was appropriate.  However, when the actual motion was presented I advised the chair that it was out of order because it went against the constitution. 

Thank you for the clarification. It appears we are on the same page on this matter.

On 6/3/2023 at 12:11 AM, LSG said:

yes, unfortunately that happened in a very big public way and now that has trickled down to be the norm.  Those that allegedly were violent in the rumored situation you are referring are similar to what is going on within this particular political party.  Almost as if they are justifying tyranny for liberty.  This paricular organization has roughly 100 or so voting members and if I recall correctly the chair received 63 votes in the re-election vs. 105.  I completely understand your comparison and maybe the rumors are causing others to feel they can simply ignore the results of an election.  So, the question is how does it stop?  

If this was a different organization I would advise the organization to consider disciplinary procedures against those who are causing problems, up to and including removal from office (or even expulsion from the organization) if necessary. Your organization may have its own rules on this matter, or else see Chapter XX of RONR.

In a political party, however, I understand that even suggesting such a thing may open up a whole other can of worms, and there are matters other than parliamentary procedure to consider. The organization will have to determine the best path forward.

Edited June 3, 2023 at 05:14 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

On 6/3/2023 at 12:27 AM, LSG said:

 As the Parliamentarian for the evening (I use the title Parlimentarian for myself very lightly as I do not carry any credentials for such position and therefore should not be referred to as such, but that was the role I filled)

One need not be a PRP or CPP to act as parliamentarian. A parliamentarian is an advisor to the chair on matters of parliamentary procedure. It seems to me that if you are in a position with those duties, then you are the parliamentarian, and need not take the title lightly.

Edited to add: But being parliamentarian in an organization of which you are a member carries its own disabilities, as well.

Edited June 3, 2023 at 07:00 PM by Joshua Katz