Allegation of bylaw violation

[Concerned in Cranston]

If a member contends that an Association elected officer has violated the organization's bylaws, who is responsible to investigate whether the allegation has merit?

[Chris Harrison]

It depends on what the nature of the violation is.  It could be a matter of simply raising a Point of Order that the officer did something that violated the bylaws or it could (more properly) be a matter of making a motion to appoint a committee to investigate the issue which could lead to preferring charges against the officer.  If you provide more details we may be able to be more specific.

[Richard Brown]

If you have or can obtain a copy of the 11th edition of RONR, it has an entire chapter of 26 pages on Discipline.  To do anything more than raise a point of order or make a simple motion of censure can be quite complicated.... or can be relatively simple, depending on the exact wording of several of your bylaw provisions and what it is that you want to accomplish. As Chris Harrison said, we need more information in order to provide more information.  Also, check your bylaws very carefully for provisions on discipline and also removal of officers.  Any provisions in your bylaws will trump RONR.   Here is a link to RONR, "The Right Book".  It retails for around $18 in bookstores and about $12.50 on Amazzon. http://www.robertsrules.com/book.html

Note:  The provisions on discipline in RONR (Chapter XX) were revised rather significantly in the 11th edition.  I would not rely on an earlier edition for information on discipline.

[Concerned in Cranston]

There are two alleged violations. A member has raised the issue that the president was requested to call a meeting of the Executive Board within 15 days of being so requested to call a meeting.  The officer alleged to have violated the bylaws (the President) contends that the relevant provision regarding the calling of a meeting refers to a General Membership meetings, but not a meeting of the Executive Board.

The second alleged violation relates to the distribution of correspondence to the Executive Board.  The bylaws state that "any correspondence is to be distributed to the Executive Board within 30 days of receipt."  The complaining member makes two claims:  First, is there is no reason that the correspondence couldn't be forwarded immediately and there is not reason to wait 30 days.  Second, this same complaining member is trying to indicate that it was 30 days to the hour such correspondence (email time stamped) was received.  

Most of us think there is no merit to either claim of violation, but are unsure as to how to address the issue and who, ultimately, bears responsibility to investigate the allegations.  It is hard for us to believe that even if these claims were true they require the censure of removal of the president.

 

[Joshua Katz]

For the first, I don't know, because I'd need to read your bylaws and we don't interpret bylaws here.  As to the second, though, I suspect I'd just give the member a blank stare, then say "wait, you want to discipline the chair because you don't like the bylaws, or is it because the chair followed the bylaws precisely?"  

[Concerned in Cranston]

I understand that you do not interpret bylaws,but this provision does not seem to require interpretation:  "The Association shall have at least two (2) annuals meeting each year. Special meetings shall be called at any time of the year by the President or at the written request of four (4) active-voting members with twn days’ prior notice to the membership."

As it speaks to the entire membership (Association) meeting twice per year, it would seem the subsequent references refer to Association meetings and not Executive Board meetings.

But irrespective of that, the question I have is, "When a member alleges a violation of the bylaws, who bears the responsibility to investigate?"

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Concerned in Cranston said:

I understand that you do not interpret bylaws,but this provision does not seem to require interpretation:  "The Association shall have at least two (2) annuals meeting each year. Special meetings shall be called at any time of the year by the President or at the written request of four (4) active-voting members with twn days’ prior notice to the membership."

As it speaks to the entire membership (Association) meeting twice per year, it would seem the subsequent references refer to Association meetings and not Executive Board meetings.

But irrespective of that, the question I have is, "When a member alleges a violation of the bylaws, who bears the responsibility to investigate?"

It is up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws, but I personally think it is clear that the quoted provision regarding special meetings applies to meetings of the membership only, not to meetings of the executive board.  Provisions regarding the executive board are probably in a different section of the bylaws.

As to your question about who investigates an allegation of wrongdoing, that is hard to answer.  First, your bylaws might make provision for discipline and/or removal of officers.  If so, those provision must be followed and the provisions of RONR would largely be irrelevant.  As to what RONR provides, in the absence of guidance in your own bylaws, normally a member proposes a resolution for the body to appoint an investigating committee to investigate the allegation and to report back to the assembly. All of this should be done in executive session or at least at a time when only members are present.  You really need to read all of chapter XX in RONR.  It is too complex for us to summarize here.  But, here is just one paragraph on page 557 (one of twenty six pages) regarding starting the process by requesting the appointment of an investigating committee:

"Accordingly, if the rules of the organization do not otherwise provide for the method of charge and trial, a member may, at a time when nonmembers are not present, offer a resolution to appoint an investigating committee. This resolution is to be in a form similar to the following:
Resolved, That a committee of . . . [perhaps "five"] be elected by ballot to investigate allegations of neglect of duty in office by our treasurer, J.M., which, if true, cast doubt on her fitness to continue in office, and that the committee be instructed, if it concludes that the allegations are well-founded, to report resolutions covering its recommendations."

[Kim Goldsworthy]

"You can't tell the players without a scorecard!"

I need to split the assertions into separate postings, to follow the action.

(This is like listening to basketball on a radio!)

***

Assertion #1: "That the president was requested to call a meeting of the Executive Board within 15 days of being so requested to call a meeting." -- But failed to call a meeting of the Executive Board.

Argument in opposition: "That the relevant provision regarding the calling of a meeting refers to a General Membership meetings, but not a meeting of the Executive Board.

Net result: No violation of the rule occurred.

***

To answer the question:

If there is a provision in one's bylaws regarding the act of "calling a special meeting", and "no meeting is called", then the body responsible for discipline may initiate proceedings to punish the targeted officer so responsible.

That body may be the executive board or may be the general membership. It is unknown for the original poster which body is so authorized. One would have to read the bylaws to confirm the proper body for disciplinary purposes.

The member who (in error) thinks the rule was violated, is free to make a motion at a general membership meeting, to create a committee to investigate. During debate, the member will present his arguments that a violation has occurred. And the other members will present arguments that NO violation occurred. Then the body votes on the motion, "Shall a committee be created to [investigate X]." The motion will be defeated, surely.

The same basic steps apply if the other body, viz., the executive board, is the body who applies the discipline.

End of Assertion #1.

 

 

[Kim Goldsworthy]

The saga continues.
 

Quote

 

ASSERTION #2: The second alleged violation relates to the distribution of correspondence to the Executive Board.  

The bylaws state that "any correspondence is to be distributed to the Executive Board within 30 days of receipt."  

The complaining member makes two claims:
 
CLAIM #1: That there is no reason that the correspondence couldn't be forwarded immediately and there is no reason to wait 30 days.
 
CLAIM #2: That it was 30 days to the hour such correspondence (email time stamped) was received.  

 

To answer the question posed:

Since no rule was violated, but obeyed to the very limit of the timeline, then the chair ought to rule any attempt to discipline the "forwarder" as "out of order".

[Josh Martin]

19 hours ago, Concerned in Cranston said:

But irrespective of that, the question I have is, "When a member alleges a violation of the bylaws, who bears the responsibility to investigate?"

The member might make a motion to censure or, if he seeks more severe penalties, see FAQ #20. A motion to censure is decided upon by the membership. Other procedures might be decided upon directly by the membership, or it might involve an investigative committee appointed by the membership, but ultimately it's going to come back to the membership.

I would note that there is not necessarily any responsibility for anyone to investigate. A single member may not demand that an investigative committee be appointed - it requires a majority vote. If the membership feels that the allegations are without any merit, it is entirely free to refuse to appoint an investigative committee.

I would also note that the President should relinquish the chair to the Vice President if any motion to discipline the President is made, to ensure that there are no doubts about the impartiality of the presiding officer.

17 hours ago, potzbie said:

Since no rule was violated, but obeyed to the very limit of the timeline, then the chair ought to rule any attempt to discipline the "forwarder" as "out of order".

I agree that, based upon the facts presented, the President does not appear to have violated any rules. I would not, however, advise the chair to rule any motions to discipline the President out of order. For one thing, it is ultimately up to the society to interpret its own rules (although it seems that they largely agree that the President has not violated any rules).

More importantly, the fact that the President has not violated the letter of the society's rules does not necessarily mean that he could not be subject to discipline. It seems that the membership will ultimately reject any motion to discipline the President, but I do not think they should be ruled out of order.