disciplinary hearings

[Guest bw]

In an Ecclesiastical association, a member has been judged guilty by the members. The members were asked to terminate membership, they voted no. They are being asked to consider suspension. Having said no to termination, what might be the proper justifications for suspension? How long of a suspension might be prudent for each scenario?

[J. J.]

There is no right or wrong answer from a parliamentary standpoint. Simply put, if the members have determined guilt, they may inflict punshment. They would be free to suspend and free to determine the length of the suspension.

[Guest Guest]

Would not a lifetime suspension be a blatant attempt to illegally devote on termination? If so, where is the logical if not legal cut off point?

[Guest Nancy N.]

Robert's Rules won't answer, and doesn't define suspension. If you want a common-sense reply to that question, you have your own. On the other hand, if they don't want to terminate the membership, why would they want to impose a lifetime suspension?

This reminds me of the time some years ago I was working in Brooklyn, and a friend who lived on the Lower East Side phoned one afternoon to ask if I wanted to meet for dinner in Chinatown, a short walk for him and a subway ride for me, which we occasionally did. I agreed, and he asked me when I could get there. I considered. It was about 5:15; I would get off work at 5:30; then a five- or ten-minute walk to the subway; an indeterminate wait for the train, anywhere from zero seconds if it pulled in when I got to the platform, up to about 20 minutes (usually much less around rush hour); train trip 20 or 25 minutes; then a ten-minute walk to the restaurant (Wo Hop, at 63 Mott Street, anyone remember it? Rob? Shmuel? It's still there). So I told him, reasonably I thought, I could be there between 6:30 and 7.

Well, he hedged, that's a long time to wait; could I narrow it down? Now obviously, I couldn't, and he, as a lifelong New Yorker and subway user, should know as well as I did what the variable was. So I obligingly replied, "-Okay, Jeff, say 6:45, give or take fifteen minutes.-"

(Almost had him.) He said, "Oh, good; thanks. That's bett-- Hey! That's the same thing! Whaddya pullin'?!"

"I really can't do any narrowing, Jeff," I said; "I could only try to make the imprecision more palatable."

So. Maybe it's really the same, but they're trying to make it more palatable?