Guest Guest_Member101 Posted June 16, 2012 at 04:16 PM Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 at 04:16 PM If our bylaws provide that Robert's Rules of Order will apply to all meetings and business transactions not otherwise specified in the bylaws, can a disciplinary committee be created in the Rules and Regs but not in the bylaws that outlines procedures different than those specified in Robert's Rules.The bylaws do state that committees can be appointed by the board and their duties outlined in the Rules and Regs and later that Rules and Regs are not to conflict with any bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted June 16, 2012 at 05:45 PM Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 at 05:45 PM I look at p. 656, and, why not?Possibly even without the specific delegation that Guest Guest Member 101's (man, what some parents do to their kids) bylaws provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted June 16, 2012 at 08:09 PM Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 at 08:09 PM If our bylaws provide that Robert's Rules of Order will apply to all meetings and business transactions not otherwise specified in the bylaws, can a disciplinary committee be created in the Rules and Regs but not in the bylaws that outlines procedures different than those specified in Robert's Rules.The bylaws do state that committees can be appointed by the board and their duties outlined in the Rules and Regs and later that Rules and Regs are not to conflict with any bylaws.If these different procedures constitute a disciplinary process which is different than that specified in RONR, then I don't see how this would be proper. If the bylaws do not describe a disciplinary process at all, then the disciplinary process defaults to that described in RONR. Setting up some alternate disciplinary process in the Rules and Regs doesn't fly. The fact that the bylaws say Rules and Regs are not to conflict with the bylaws also makes this abundantly clear (if the bylaws defer to RONR on discipline, the Rules and Regs must follow suit, or they would be in conflict with the bylaws).So, are the different procedures actually in conflict with what is described in RONR? If they only serve to fill in some details, while staying inside the RONR framework, that may not be a problem (perhaps this is what Nancy N. had in mind ?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_Member101 Posted June 17, 2012 at 04:03 PM Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 at 04:03 PM If these different procedures constitute a disciplinary process which is different than that specified in RONR, then I don't see how this would be proper. If the bylaws do not describe a disciplinary process at all, then the disciplinary process defaults to that described in RONR. Setting up some alternate disciplinary process in the Rules and Regs doesn't fly. The fact that the bylaws say Rules and Regs are not to conflict with the bylaws also makes this abundantly clear (if the bylaws defer to RONR on discipline, the Rules and Regs must follow suit, or they would be in conflict with the bylaws).So, are the different procedures actually in conflict with what is described in RONR? If they only serve to fill in some details, while staying inside the RONR framework, that may not be a problem (perhaps this is what Nancy N. had in mind ?).As an example the Rules of the society say that there will be no investigation of the complaint, it is just taken at face value as is the response.There is no guarantee of confidentiality.The committee is comprised of a non-board chair and limited to 3 members, all of whom must be on the board of directors, no stipulation as to integrity or impartiality. The assembly has added the director's job description as one of the items they are able to pass judgment on. Whether or not it has been complied with and failure to comply can result in expulsion of member, which of course, removes that person from their elected position on the board. There is no qualifier as to how serious the violation must be-it could be a simple matter of procedure, including RONR in the way it this rule is wriiten.This appears to me to sidestep the process outlined for removal of a director which requires a special meeting, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted June 17, 2012 at 05:15 PM Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 at 05:15 PM These rules substantially depart from RONR's discipline rules, not to mention due process.So you are on your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted June 17, 2012 at 07:35 PM Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 at 07:35 PM These rules substantially depart from RONR's discipline rules, not to mention due process.So you are on your own.Except that these substantially departing rules are apparently not in the bylaws of the organization. If I understood correctly, they are in this 'Rules and Regs' document. If that's the case, do you really think the new rules have any validity at all?If the bylaws say that Rules and Regs shall not conflict with the bylaws, then it seems that a motion that sets up a disciplinary process that conflicts with the bylaws would be null and void (p. 251 (a)). Actually, even if the bylaws didn't contain that extra statement about the Rules and Regs document, it seems to me that adopting a substantially different disciplinary process is null and void because it conflicts with the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted June 17, 2012 at 07:45 PM Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 at 07:45 PM Well, the standard bylaw provision adopting RONR as the "Authority" does say, in part..."... not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the society may adopt"But I agree -- the seriousness of disciplinary procedures should be in the bylaws.BTW, logically the bolded "and" should be "or". Something for RONR/12 to fix (although "and" has been there since time immemorial (almost). The 1915 ROR edition used "or" correctly. Henry the engineer knew his set theory. RONR 1970 changed it to "and". Why?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted June 17, 2012 at 08:00 PM Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 at 08:00 PM Well, the standard bylaw provision adopting RONR as the "Authority" does say, in part..."... not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the society may adopt"But I agree -- the seriousness of disciplinary procedures should be in the bylaws.BTW, logically the bolded "and" should be "or". Something for RONR/12 to fix (although "and" has been there since time immemorial (almost). The 1915 ROR edition used "or" correctly. Henry the engineer knew his set theory. RONR 1970 changed it to "and". Why?)Well, interesting... from post #1 I assumed that the Board was modifying the Rules and Regs, and a board normally doesn't adopt special rules of order binding on the whole organization. Perhaps the Rules and Regs are special rules of order, and perhaps the board does have authority to adopt special rules of order in this particular organization...Is a disciplinary process really all in the nature of rules of order anyway ? (doesn't seem like it to me). For example, in post #4 Member_101 describes the addition of a new category of violation (director's failure to comply with job description in any way), with a possible penalty of expulsion. That doesn't smell like a rule of order. Neither does 'there will be no investigation of the complaint' sound like a rule of order.Beyond that there is that extra bylaws provision about Rules and Regs not conflicting with bylaws -- presumably the writers of the bylaws had a reason for including that extra language ('There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it.' pp. 589-590). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted June 17, 2012 at 08:40 PM Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 at 08:40 PM 'There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it.' pp. 589-590.Whoever presumes that hasn't spent much time on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_Member101 Posted June 17, 2012 at 11:01 PM Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 at 11:01 PM Well, interesting... from post #1 I assumed that the Board was modifying the Rules and Regs, and a board normally doesn't adopt special rules of order binding on the whole organization. Perhaps the Rules and Regs are special rules of order, and perhaps the board does have authority to adopt special rules of order in this particular organization...Is a disciplinary process really all in the nature of rules of order anyway ? (doesn't seem like it to me). For example, in post #4 Member_101 describes the addition of a new category of violation (director's failure to comply with job description in any way), with a possible penalty of expulsion. That doesn't smell like a rule of order. Neither does 'there will be no investigation of the complaint' sound like a rule of order.Beyond that there is that extra bylaws provision about Rules and Regs not conflicting with bylaws -- presumably the writers of the bylaws had a reason for including that extra language ('There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it.' pp. 589-590).These items are listed in the Bylaws under 3 separate article identifiers:*The Board of Directors may from time to time adopt such Rules and Regulations, and such Procedures as it may deemadvisable, not inconsistent with these Bylaws or with the Articles of Incorporation.*The rules contained in the Bylaws shall govern the Association in all cases to which they areapplicable.*No standing Rule or Resolution can be adopted which conflicts with the Bylaws of the Association.And, as stated earlier:"“Robert’s Rules of Order” shall apply to all meetings and business transactions not otherwise specified in the Bylaws"All of the committees and their duties are listed in the Rules and not in the Bylaws ; the Bylaws note that the committees and there duties will appear in the Rules in outlining the process for appointing committees. Historically this disciplinary committee operated in much the same fashion as the RONR outlines and so there was no apparent conflict and it was limited to and applied only to serious Code of Ethics violations which could not be successfully mediated by the committee after review and investigation.In reviewing your responses I am interested in the concept of whether or not this is a Rule of Order or business of the Association that would fall under the Bylaw stipulating that Rules cannot conflict with Robert's Rules if the Bylaws are silent on a process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.