Disciplinary Question

[Guest James]

Our Board has a new problem to deal with.  For two meetings running now a couple of members have reacted...unpleasantly...to votes that did not go their way.  The immediate result was that these individuals got up and left, liberally sprinkling, ahem, "disorderly" vocabulary on their way out.  Since they decided to depart on their own immediately following the disorderly behavior, there was no need to ask for a motion to expel them from the meeting.

So, what disciplinary options, if any, are available at the start of the next meeting?  More generally, for anybody who self-ejects like that, what options are there for dealing with the underlying disorderly conduct?  RONR is, of course, our underlying parliamentary authority and the bylaws do not address in-meeting discipline in any way.

Thanks.

[Rob Elsman]

The proper authority for disciplinary matters can open a disciplinary procedure to determine whether the "self-eject[ion]" without a legitimate excuse amounts to dereliction of duty of such severity that real harm may result for the society as a whole.  Of course, such behavior may also be used as fodder at the next election, should these members stand again for election to office.

[Josh Martin]

On 3/6/2024 at 2:38 PM, Guest James said:

Our Board has a new problem to deal with.  For two meetings running now a couple of members have reacted...unpleasantly...to votes that did not go their way.  The immediate result was that these individuals got up and left, liberally sprinkling, ahem, "disorderly" vocabulary on their way out.  Since they decided to depart on their own immediately following the disorderly behavior, there was no need to ask for a motion to expel them from the meeting.

I gather from the facts presented that the disorderly vocabulary was not spoken at a time at which the persons had the floor and were speaking in debate.

On 3/6/2024 at 2:38 PM, Guest James said:

So, what disciplinary options, if any, are available at the start of the next meeting?  More generally, for anybody who self-ejects like that, what options are there for dealing with the underlying disorderly conduct?  RONR is, of course, our underlying parliamentary authority and the bylaws do not address in-meeting discipline in any way.

For starters, do the bylaws have their own procedures regarding discipline? If so, those procedures are controlling. You say that your bylaws "do not address in-meeting discipline," but do they address discipline or removal more generally?

If not, these matters may be acted upon (assuming I am correct that the members did not have the floor at the time they used their "disorderly vocabulary"), but formal disciplinary procedures will be required. If the board is part of a larger society, such powers are reserved for the general membership. The formal disciplinary procedures can be found in RONR (12th ed.) Section 63.

As a general matter, I would note that the fact that a member voluntarily leaves the meeting does not make them immune from the assembly applying the swifter disciplinary procedures for offenses occurring at a meeting. But if the board in question is a part of a larger society, the board is quite limited in the actions it may take in regard to discipline, unless the bylaws have their own rules on this subject.

"If improper conduct by a member of a society occurs elsewhere than at a meeting, the members generally have no first-hand knowledge of the case. Therefore, if disciplinary action is to be taken, charges must be preferred and a formal trial held before the assembly of the society, or before a committee—standing or special—which is then required to report its findings and recommendations to the assembly for action. In addition, even when improper conduct occurs at a meeting, in order for disciplinary action to be taken other than promptly after the breach occurs, charges must be preferred and a formal trial held. 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. In some societies (depending on particular provisions of the bylaws, as explained in 62), the same steps must also be employed if an officer of the society is to be removed from office. The procedures governing all such cases are described in detail in 63." RONR (12th ed.) 61:22

"The executive board of an organized society operates under the society's bylaws, the society's parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules of the society which may be applicable to it. Such a board may adopt its own special rules of order or standing rules only to the extent that such rules do not conflict with any of the rules of the society listed above. It may protect itself against breaches of order by its members during board meetings, and against annoyance by nonmembers, by employing the procedures outlined in 61:10–21, but the maximum penalty which may be imposed upon a disorderly member of the board is that he be required to leave the meeting room during the remainder of the meeting. A board that is not a part of a society can adopt its own rules, provided that they do not conflict with anything in the legal instrument under which the board is constituted." RONR (12th ed.) 49:15

Edited March 6, 2024 at 09:22 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest James]

The disorderly language was spoken while they were in the act of walking out, so neither had the floor.

The Bylaws say almost nothing about discipline, which is why I see this as a RONR question.  The only comment on discipline in the Bylaws is that the Board may dismiss a member for conduct adverse to the objectives of the society.  Nothing else related to discipline is addressed.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/7/2024 at 10:19 AM, Guest James said:

The disorderly language was spoken while they were in the act of walking out, so neither had the floor.

The Bylaws say almost nothing about discipline, which is why I see this as a RONR question.  The only comment on discipline in the Bylaws is that the Board may dismiss a member for conduct adverse to the objectives of the society.  Nothing else related to discipline is addressed.

Agreeing with @Josh Martin, I would add one point.

It is possible for the board to adopt a motion of Censure [61:2n1] against the offenders without going through a whole formal discipline process.  It has no punitive effect other than expressing the displeasure of the body, but it does serve as a warning that a repetition of this bad behavior will be unwelcome.

 

[Guest James]

On 3/7/2024 at 12:13 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Agreeing with @Josh Martin, I would add one point.

It is possible for the board to adopt a motion of Censure [61:2n1] against the offenders without going through a whole formal discipline process.  It has no punitive effect other than expressing the displeasure of the body, but it does serve as a warning that a repetition of this bad behavior will be unwelcome.

That's kind of what I was thinking.  Whether or not formal discipline (investigation and charges) is applicable, I don't see there being enough interest in actually doing so.

One other thought...  Since there was no opportunity to call the disorderly Board members to order (either unofficially or by naming) before they left the hall, is it in any way appropriate to start the next meeting with a statement from the chair reminding "everybody" (but these people specifically) what constitutes inappropriate behavior?

[Gary Novosielski]

I think it would be, but stay tuned for possible dissenting opinions.  I would stick to reminding everybody not anyone by name.

It would be a stronger admonishment if the board had agreed to censure those persons by name at the prior meeting, since this would appear in the minutes being approved at the current meeting

[Guest James]

On 3/7/2024 at 1:17 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I think it would be, but stay tuned for possible dissenting opinions.  I would stick to reminding everybody not anyone by name.

It would be a stronger admonishment if the board had agreed to censure those persons by name at the prior meeting, since this would appear in the minutes being approved at the current meeting

I agree that the reminder should be to everybody.

The whole situation kind of caught everybody off guard, being towards the end of a long and, as might be obvious, somewhat contentious meeting and the people in question basically being out the door before anybody was able to react.  I think everybody was focused on finishing up the discussion at hand and going home.  Now that it has happened twice, though, if it happens again I could see people being ready to consider a censure vote.

As it is, the minutes will show that they left early and that the departure was unexcused.

[Josh Martin]

On 3/7/2024 at 9:19 AM, Guest James said:

The Bylaws say almost nothing about discipline, which is why I see this as a RONR question.  The only comment on discipline in the Bylaws is that the Board may dismiss a member for conduct adverse to the objectives of the society.  Nothing else related to discipline is addressed.

Well, it sounds like your bylaws say something about discipline.

But it sounds like your organization is interested at this time in pursuing, at most, a motion to censure. So there may not be a need for us to further explore options beyond that at this time.

On 3/7/2024 at 11:13 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

It is possible for the board to adopt a motion of Censure [61:2n1] against the offenders without going through a whole formal discipline process.  It has no punitive effect other than expressing the displeasure of the body, but it does serve as a warning that a repetition of this bad behavior will be unwelcome.

I agree.

On 3/7/2024 at 12:07 PM, Guest James said:

One other thought...  Since there was no opportunity to call the disorderly Board members to order (either unofficially or by naming) before they left the hall, is it in any way appropriate to start the next meeting with a statement from the chair reminding "everybody" (but these people specifically) what constitutes inappropriate behavior?

Certainly. The procedures pertaining to discipline for behavior within a meeting can no longer be used after the meeting is over, but a reminder concerning the rules of decorum is always appropriate, and seems especially appropriate in these circumstances.

On 3/7/2024 at 12:49 PM, Guest James said:

I agree that the reminder should be to everybody.

The whole situation kind of caught everybody off guard, being towards the end of a long and, as might be obvious, somewhat contentious meeting and the people in question basically being out the door before anybody was able to react.  I think everybody was focused on finishing up the discussion at hand and going home.  Now that it has happened twice, though, if it happens again I could see people being ready to consider a censure vote.

As it is, the minutes will show that they left early and that the departure was unexcused.

Well, this is getting a bit outside the realm of parliamentary procedure, but it may well be beneficial for someone (perhaps the chair) to speak with these members prior to the next meeting about their recent behavior, discuss how it was inappropriate, and how the chair will be enforcing the rules of decorum in the future. How the members react to that may well inform the assembly's next steps.

Edited March 8, 2024 at 02:51 AM by Josh Martin