@Mailbox said:
Code of conduct I think is something everyone will just agree to sign, and good luck with trying to achieve compliance. The majority of reasonable people already follow these – the troublemakers will never follow them and having them sign this won’t change that. They are bullies who ignore sanctions which have no teeth.
The reason I suggested having a “naming” mechanism is so that, at the very least, at the next AGM you can show that certain members have been consistently disruptive and encourage owners not to re-elect them to allow for the smooth running of the committee.
The reason I suggested this be put to a vote at the committee was to show that the majority of the committee agreed they had been disruptive and to ensure there was no comeback with threats of defamation. The committee has qualified privilege when it comes to identifying owners who have caused problems. In other words, the “naming” is part of the process rather than a personal dispute between the disruptive owner and the chair.
Recording the meetings and posting them on social media would be a bridge too far for many committee members who want to be able to have an open and frank discussion about issues the details of which they don’t necessarily want to broadcast to the world.