A Primer for Presiding Officers, Part 2 – Formal Control and Penalties Carl Nohr, PRP

A P R i MER F o R P RES i D i NG oFF i CERS , PART 2

Formal Control and Penalties

By Carl Nohr, PRP

Control of a meeting is important in achieving the objectives of an organization. As seen in “A Primer for Presiding Officers, Part 1” (Vol 82, No 1, Fall 2020), there are informal and formal ways to control meetings. Member self-control enhances meeting quality and productivity and can be improved by teaching. The wise chair uses knowledge of the rules, with the application of tact, diplomacy, and calmness, to control the meeting on behalf of the members. At no time should the chair attempt to drown out a disorderly member by using voice or gavel.1 The principles of fairness and appropriate escalation are important in discipline and the imposition of penalties. The same knowledge and skills are used in electronic meetings and in-person meetings.

Formal control of a meeting is primarily the responsibility of the presiding officer.

The presiding officer, whether a member of the association, or an external professional presiding officer, must have knowledge, skills, and certain character attributes to be successful. The needed knowledge and skills include understanding of the organization and its governing documents, both theoretical knowledge of rules of order and practical skills in the application of them, and a familiarity with the organizational culture and personalities of leaders. The characteristics of an effective presiding officer include impartiality, tact, common sense, immunity to offense, and a blend of gravitas with a sense of humor.

All members play a role in controlling a meeting.

As important as the chair’s role is in controlling a meeting, the chair is not exclusively responsible. The responsibility for maintaining the rules,

The wise chair uses knowledge of the rules, with the application of tact, diplomacy, and calmness, to control the meeting on behalf of the members.

and hence to deal with a disorderly non-member or member, is shared by all members present. Also, individual members may disagree with a ruling of the chair, and may move an appeal from the decision of the chair.2

The most important contribution from members to good meeting control is self-control. A greater understanding by members of meeting management will allow greater contributions and more effective meetings. Excellent answers from the chair to parliamentary inquires, coaching, and teaching moments can all contribute to greater self-control by members, diminishing the need for external control by the chair. This concept is also an excellent argument for promoting widespread membership in the National Association of Parliamentarians!

During a meeting, a member may call another member to order for offenses against the rules,3 by rising and saying, “Mr. President, I call the member to order.” This is a point of order, and may interrupt the current speaker. If the chair concurs, he declares the offender out of order and directs him to be seated.4 If the offender is currently speaking, the chair asks the assembly whether the member shall be allowed to continue to speak.5 This question is undebatable, and is dealt with immediately.

Use formal control only to the degree necessary.

Formal control of a meeting is achieved by application of the rules. The level of strictness should be limited to the point of allowing efficient conduct of business, and may depend on organizational culture and size of the meeting. These concepts, together with the use of tact and good sense by presiding officers are specifically described in RONR: “The president should never be technical or more strict than is necessary for the good of the meeting. Good judgement is essential; the assembly may be of such a nature, through its unfamiliarity with parliamentary usage and its peaceable disposition, that strict enforcement of the rules, instead of assisting, would greatly hinder business. But in large assemblies where there is much work to be done, and especially when there is likelihood of trouble, the only safe course is to require a strict observance of the rules.”;6 and “At the same time, any presiding officer will do well to bear in mind that no rules can take the place of tact and common sense on the part of the chairman.”7

The principles of efficiency and escalation suggests that minor

2 RONR (11th ed.), pp. 255-260 3 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 3-4 4 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 2-6 5 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646. ll. 10-15 6 RONR (11th ed.), p. 456, ll. 13-21 7 RONR (11th ed.), p. 449, ll. 12-14

infractions of the rules that do not hinder the society’s activities nor affect the rights of any member, should be overlooked. If such a transgression requires comment from the chair, this may be given after rapping the gavel lightly, explaining the matter, and allowing the member to proceed.8 After the meeting, the wise chair will find value in taking a few minutes for informal teaching of the member.

If a more severe offence occurs, or an offense is repeated, the chair or any member may call the offending member to order.9 This level of discipline is impersonal; the member’s name is not used. If the offense is egregious, the member may be named, and the name and offense recorded.10

An organization’s ability to discipline members is restricted to the standing of the member in the organization. The available consequences thus include censure, removal from meetings, fines, removal from office, suspension, or expulsion.11 Consequences outside the control of the organization may ensue if illegal activity has occurred.

If the assembly wishes to impose a further penalty for the offense, a member may move to do so, stating the proposed penalty, or the chair may ask, “Shall a penalty be imposed?” The assembly may order that the offending member be censured for the offense. This warns the member to cease the offending behavior, or risk a further penalty. The next level of escalation is to consider removal from the meeting. The chair cannot demand that a member be removed from the meeting, but the assembly may do so.12 In this case, fairness requires that the member, if they disagree with the penalty of removal, be allowed time to briefly state their position before leaving to allow the assembly to consider the penalty.13

Other possible penalties include apology to an offended member, imposition of a fine, suspension or expulsion from the organization.14 If the offense occurred during a meeting, there is usually no need for a formal trial.15

If fines may be levied against members for defined offenses to the rules, such fines should be listed in the governing documents, and should be of amounts that strike a balance between a reasonable amount and a sufficient deterrent against repetition.

8 RONR (11th ed.), p. 645, ll. 22-28 9 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 3-4 10 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 16-25 11 RONR (11th ed.), p. 643, ll. 12-15 12 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 26-28 13 RONR (11th ed.), p. 647, ll. 21-23 14 RONR (11th ed.), p. 647, ll. 14-20 15 RONR (11th ed.), p. 646, ll. 28-33

Suspension of membership is a serious penalty that should suffice for all but the worst offenses against the rules of the organization. Suspension may be ordered by the assembly. The time and nature of the attached restrictions should be explicit, as well as any conditions that must be met prior to considering reinstatement. The timelines and process for reinstatement should be explicit and documented.

Removal from office, for example membership on the board, committee service, or other assigned or elected positions, may be a logical penalty if the member’s behavior is considered to render them incapable of serving. In some cases, removal from office is automatic if the member is suspended. Governing documents should be searched for language that would prohibit a member under certain conditions from serving in certain roles.

Expulsion from the organization is the ultimate penalty. All penalties preceding this level can be imposed with a majority vote; expulsion requires a 2/3 vote.16 This is appropriate when the member’s behavior is incompatible with the objectives and governing documents of the organization and there is no desire on the part of the member, or no opportunity offered by the organization, to come into compliance. Expulsion is also an appropriate step in escalation if any conditions that must be met prior to reinstatement of a suspended member are not fulfilled in the defined time frame. If expulsion is ordered, the organization should consider whether publication to membership is in the organization’s interest, and whether any conditions exist whereby the former member could be readmitted to the organization. As such situations can be challenging, careful and thorough documentation and communication with the member are advised.

At all levels of transgression and possible sanctions, the use of careful consideration of the offense, thorough knowledge of the rules, blended with tact, sensitivity, and diplomacy, will produce the best results. In addition to carefully selecting the people involved in evaluating transgressions, organizations would do well to consider the early use of informal methods of dispute resolution. Perceived offenses may be the result of ignorance, misunderstanding or poor communication. It would be unfortunate to lose members or to damage relationships unnecessarily. NP

16 RONR (11th ed.), p. 648, ll. 1-2

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.