Chairman of the Board

[Jim Anderson]

A concern has been raised by a member of our organization related to our COB at a Club event. 

The concerned member wishes to address the Board at a meeting of the Board regarding an incident that occurred during the event. This address is expected to be made in executive session.

Due to the fact, the COB is party to the complaint, should he recuse himself from the Chair position during the member's address in closed session?

Also, I am under the impression that he would be able to participate in debate concerning the complaint after stepping down from the Chair position for this meeting. Is this appropriate?

Notably, this request to address the Board is not expected to result in any sort of Trial or disciplinary action by the Board. It likely will result in action by the Board to enact a standing rule to address the complaint.

 

[George Mervosh]

Here is the rule in RONR - ""Whenever a motion is made that refers only to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared in common with other members, or that commends or censures him with others, he should turn the chair over to the vice-president or appropriate temporary occupant (see below) during the assembly's consideration of that motion, just as he would in a case where he wishes to take part in debate (see also 43:29–30). The chair, however, should not hesitate to put the question on a motion to elect officers or appoint delegates or a committee even if he is included."  RONR (12th ed.), 47:10  

Even though this is a discussion, rather than a motion pending regarding his conduct, my opinion is he should not preside.  

If other members will have an opportunity to speak to the comments, the chair is certainly able to participate in the discussion as well, and all members are bound by the rules of decorum.

He absolutely should preside over an motion to adopt a standing rule on the matter because the rule would apply to all members, including him.

[Rob Elsman]

Since this is likely a smallish board, the chair need not maintain the appearance of impartiality and can preside right along with other member and in the same way.  I would caution that the "incident" may only be mentioned when a relevant main motion is pending and may not stray beyond what is necessary to debate the merits of the main motion.  The main motion to adopt some rule is what is before the board, not the "incident" per se.  Care must be taken not to deal in personalities during debate.

[George Mervosh]

Regardless of the size of the board, I maintain my position that he should not preside in this case.

If, as Mr. Elsman suggests, this is a board that operates under the rules for small boards (RONR 12th ed., 49:21), then I respectfully disagree with him that the matter may only be discussed when a relevant main motion is pending. RONR (12th ed.), 49:21 4)

[Rob Elsman]

Mr. Mervosh is correct to cite what he did; however, in this case (since the "incident" may very well involve the behavior of a member or members), it is more necessary than usual, perhaps, to have a main motion before the board to clearly confine the debate within the bounds of the main motion and avoid an amorphous discussion dealing with personalities.  This all assumes a lot of facts, of course.  One fact that we seem to be missing is whether the board has any authority to act at all.  Since "incident" can cover a lot of ground, I think we would need more information to know whether or not the board is outside its scope of authority to deal with the matter at all.  It may well be that the whole matter is out-of-bounds in the board meeting.

[Jim Anderson]

Not usually inclined to "air dirty laundry" however a little more information seems in order here.

We are a “small board” and do employ RONR’s rules for small boards as you indicate.

Our COB has a proven aggressive dog that has on three occasions, bitten other member’s dogs and tripping a member who was attempting to keep her dog from harm. This aggressive dog has been in training to curb the aggressive nature however the dog continues to be aggressive.

The last incident occurred at a club event where the offending dog bit a much smaller dog (another member’s) drawing blood on the smaller dog. The smaller dog’s owner (a member) plans to address the Board concerning this matter and is demanding the COB recluse himself from the Chair position during the address. This member also wants the Board to require the COB to muzzle his dog at an upcoming event or keep the dog out of public.

Notably, the Board is currently working on a policy/rule that addresses this sort of aggressive dog behavior. Likely will include use of a muzzle and short leash whenever a member’s aggressive dog is among other members and their dogs. This knowledge does not seem to satisfy the small dog’s owner in the least.

OH the sagas emerging in a small club.

[Rob Elsman]

Thank you for the additional information.

Assuming that the board has authority to make rules concerning the management of dogs on the property, any member of the board may make a main motion to adopt the rule.  A second may be dispensed with.  The motion is debatable and amendable.  It requires a majority vote for adoption.

Since the chairman is apparently not the only member of the organization who might be affected by such a rule, he is free to actively participate in the debate, offer secondary motions, and vote.  Since this is a small board, there is certainly no need for the chair to relinquish the chair in order to maintain the appearance of impartiality, nor would it be proper for him to do so if he is not otherwise legitimately impeded, since his premier duty is to preside at the meeting.

I take it that the small dog owner is a member of the organization, but is not a member of the board.  If this is the case, nothing in RONR (12th ed.) gives him the right to address the board about anything or even be present in the meeting room.  If the board agrees to invite the person as a guest, care must be taken to confine his remarks strictly to only that which has a direct bearing on the advisability of adopting the proposed rule, and nothing can be tolerated that strays (pardon the pun) into personal animosities toward the aggressive dog's owner, directly or indirectly.

[Gary Novosielski]

If the motion applies only to the chair's aggressive dog, then he should relinquish the chair during its consideration, and refrain from voting.   If however the motion proposes a rule that applies equally to all (as it should) then the chair may preside normally, and vote on the adoption of the rule.

But as @Rob Elsman wisely points out, be certain that rulemaking is a power that the board is granted in the bylaws, or at least the power to control what happens on club grounds.  If not, then the membership would need to vote on it.  But in general rules like that are proper and common. 

You might consider clearly defining how a dog comes to be considered aggressive, or you might pass the rule easily, but still have a big argument when the time comes to apply the rule.

[Rob Elsman]

I disagree that the chairman of a small board should relinquish the chair, even if the rule is aimed specifically and individually at him and his aggressive dog.

Edited November 2, 2023 at 12:26 AM by Rob Elsman

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/1/2023 at 8:25 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I disagree that the chairman of a small board should relinquish the chair, even if the rule is aimed specifically and individually at him and his aggressive dog.

Well, I must concede that 4:21(7) does say "all questions," and I understand that impartiality is less than of an issue in small boards, but I think a motion regarding the chair as an individual, especially if it is a motion of reproach, would be an exception, in a better world than this one.

Edited November 2, 2023 at 04:23 PM by Gary Novosielski
as indicated

[Rob Elsman]

I have to wonder if this proposed rule is really just being used as a pretense to start a cat fight in a meeting.  Whatever happens, the chair has the duty to prevent the fur from flying. 😁

[Jim Anderson]

Thank you all for your thoughtful remarks and Tutelage. Very helpful.

Just a note though, the proposed rule is one of many being considered to help the Board in management of our organization. Although it is born out of an incident that has occurred, it is not intended to "start a fight" among members. In fact, it is hoped to thwart altercations.😀

[Rob Elsman]

I think it is completely possible to have a vigorous debate on some kind of "leash rule" (for lack of a better name) with the debate devolving into "hissing and spitting" (from the history of the English House of Commons).  Here are some quick tips off the top of my head:

• Speakers should strictly avoid the use of people's names, the second person personal pronoun, and the second person personal adjective.
• Speakers should strictly avoid connecting the aggressive dog's behavior to any particular person.  It is sufficient, for purposes of debating the proposed rule, to explain that a resident's dog was attacked and bitten by another resident's unleashed, unmuzzled dog while using the common area of the community.  For purposes of the debate, it makes no difference whose dog attacked and bit.  Leave it out.
• Whatever rule is proposed for adoption should be written in such a way that it applies to any resident of the community in the same circumstances, avoiding "aiming" the rule at any particular resident.  In consequence, the rule should be written with such completeness and clarity that any and every resident would be able to know, with reasonable certainty, whether and to what extent the rule applied to him in any circumstance, notwithstanding who was the particular resident or his dog.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

I would add to your first point:

• Strictly adhering to the rule that all remarks must be addressed to the chair, and never to other members, even when names and second-person pronouns are avoided.