FeATUreS A Primer for Presiding Officers, Part 1 – Control of In-Person and Electronic Meetings Carl Nohr, PRP

A Pri M er F or Pre S i D i N g oFF i C er S , PA r T 1

Control of In-Person and Electronic Meetings

By Carl Nohr, PRP

What does “control of a meeting” mean?

To control something means having the power to influence behavior, and exercising it. Presiding officers have this power, and must exercise it on behalf of the organization—never in their own interest. A good presiding officer recognizes that the ultimate authority rests with the members of an assembly. The duty of the chair to control a meeting is not an opportunity to impose their will, but rather an opportunity to serve the needs of the members. Rules of order are based on mainlining the rights of individual members while respecting the right of the majority to decide. The role of the presiding officer is to manage effective majority decision making, while ensuring that all members are treated fairly by adherence to the rules of order.

Why control a meeting?

Organizations are created to accomplish objectives. To do so, rules and the ability to enforce them are needed. Good control of a meeting using rules is essential for the business of the assembly to be conducted in a fair and efficient manner.

The presiding officer sets the tone in a meeting. In addition to being competent, confident, and collegial, an effective chair will convey an attitude of service to the members. This recognizes the parliamentary principle that while the assembly has elected or appointed the presiding officer, nearly all his or her rulings may be appealed from, returning the final decision to the assembly.1 Wise

This article reviews informal control of meetings and electronic meetings. Part 2 will appear in National Parliamentarian, Vol. 82, No. 2, Winter 2021, and address formal control of meetings by presiding officers.

chairs will remind members of their right to challenge the chair’s rulings.

informal control methods are useful

There are many informal ways to control a meeting. They include solving potential controversies before a meeting using informal advice, coaching of members, and conflict resolution methods. Both the presiding officer and members may use such methods.

During a meeting, the use of appropriate impersonal humor can often improve control of the meeting. The author has found a self-deprecating tone to be most useful. Sarcasm must be absolutely avoided. The presiding officer should use appropriate verbal and body language to reinforce the dignity and authority of the chair. In some instances, by exercising patience and diplomacy, a perceived offense can be a learning opportunity, and a chance to retain members and develop positive relationships.

The principle of escalation is important in meeting control when dealing with offenses against the rules. Escalation is based on severity of the offence, and in some cases repetition. If a member persists in offending, despite warnings and being called to

2

3

4 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 16-25 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 26-28 RONR (11th ed.), p. 648, ll. 17-22 RONR (11th ed.), p. 95, ll. 31-34 order, the chair may “name” the offender.2 The chair shall cause the offense to be recorded with the name of the offender. The chair does not have the authority to impose a penalty, but the assembly may do so.3

even non-members of the organization are subject to discipline

A rule without a consequence attached to transgression thereof is meaningless, hence the need for discipline. Discipline in meetings is different for non-members and members.

Members have the right to attend meetings, but non-members do not. The first disciplinary action that can therefore be taken to address a disorderly non-member is to remove them from the meeting. The chair may decide to do so, subject to an appeal from a member that the decision of the chair be overturned.4

Alternatively, a motion may be made to go into executive session,5 thus excluding all non-members from being present.

Members are subject to more discipline

Transgressions and discipline are divided into two broad categories: in meetings, and outside meetings. In

meetings, the offense is visible to all members present, and penalty can therefore be decided contemporaneously. Offenses that occur outside of meetings require an allegation of offense, in other words a charge, and then a trial to determine the facts and assign penalty. This is a specialized area of parliamentary law outside the scope of this article; the reader is referred to §63 of RONR (11th ed.) for further information regarding investigation and trial.6

Rules regarding member behavior at meetings, and the consequences of breaking such rules, may be found in several locations in governing documents. Such information may be in bylaws, a parliamentary authority, standing rules, or embedded in one or more codes adopted by the organization, for example a code of conduct or a code of ethics or professionalism. Even without explicit rules, behavior that is injurious to the organization can be subject to discipline.7

In addition to rules of order, a “code of conduct” is useful as an additional document governing the behavior of officers and members. Such a code may contain a list of the duties and responsibilities of members, conflict of interest guidelines, and the process to report, evaluate, and determine a decision on possible transgressions of the code. Listing of the member’s rights to a fair process can be included, as well as the various potential solutions available to the organization and the member to resolve the concern, like mediated or informal dispute resolution. Specific policies of the organization, for example on the receipt of gifts, political activity, and confidentiality rules, may be stated in the code. Finally, the process for evaluation of possible offenses, and the potential penalties may be stated.

A code of ethics and/or professionalism may also be adopted by an organization. A code of ethics is often more aspirational in nature, while a code of professionalism can be more explicit about exactly what behaviors the organization requires of its members. Such a code must be carefully reviewed to ensure that the statements in it are clear and subject to as little interpretation as possible. The statements should also be actionable; that is, that they should be able to be proven or not, and be logically attached to a penalty. The NAP Code of Ethics8 contains both

6

7

8 RONR (11th ed.), pp. 654-669 RONR (11th ed.), p. 644, ll. 5-7 Code of Professional Responsibility for Parliamentarians, jointly adopted by The National Association of Parliamentarians® and The American Institute of Parliamentarians™. Initially adopted 2001, revised and renamed 2020. See pages 25-28 of this issue of National Parliamentarian.

aspirational and actionable elements. A transgression against the latter would trigger a review of the members’ behavior.

Control in electronic meetings is the same as in-person meetings

While some of the tools vary, the principles and actions needed to control electronic meetings are identical with in-person meetings.

To use informal mechanisms, a presiding officer should develop relationships and learn how to be influential electronically. The wise chair will work to develop excellent electronic communication skills, and how to maintain a confident and calm style online.

For more formal control, the principle of a measured level of control for the good of the meeting while not being stricter in the application of rules than necessary, applies to electronic meetings. Electronic tools duplicate or enhance the tools available to the presiding officer at an in-person meeting. The adoption of specific rules for discipline in electronic meetings

9 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 26-28 should be considered, especially if trouble is anticipated.

Attendance at the meeting can easily be controlled using invitations, passwords, and waiting rooms. The chair of an electronic meeting can mute a member’s microphone, as well as censure them verbally or in writing. While the chair of an electronic meeting can remove a member, he does not have this authority unless demanded by the members as a penalty.9 The meeting may be recorded if needed later in evidence. If this is done, attendees should be notified that the meeting is being recorded.

Members may play a role in formal control of electronic meetings just as they may at in-person meetings. A member may interrupt the current speaker with a signal previously agreed upon to indicate a wish to interrupt. The member may then, for example, state their point of order, calling another member to order. The chair then follows the same process as outlined above for in-person meetings.

Carl Nohr, M.D., PrP, joined the NAP in 2013 and became a PRP in 2018. He serves as a Director, Vice Chair, Secretary, and Speaker for several associations. He is a student of good governance, meeting management, and decision making. He loves to share knowledge and believes we can all learn much from each other.