Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Can officer sit in on complaint against them


Guest Linda

Recommended Posts

Thank you Hieu and Rev Ed,

I was pretty sure I read something to that fact.  We have 2 of our BOD severely attacking our President.  They have filed one complaint  that was ruled not valid due the fact it wasn't signed.  They are now getting ready to file another one.  These complaints are related to stuff that happened in 2015 (same President with an almost completely different BOD).  These two have decided that "someone needs to pay" and are now telling our President that she is only able to participate in the hearing but nothing else.  These same two are trying to inhibit the VP from attending as well since they are friends.  "Conflict of interest".  If the current BOD accepts to hear the complaint, I would like to be able to reference the location in RONR that would explain that the President can sit in.  Are you able to do that or is it only customary to give a yes or no answer?

Thanks in advance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Page 47, ll. 21-31 gives the best you'll see in RONR about it. Your bylaws may provide additional rules (it's not uncommon to specify conflict of interest rules in bylaws), but if they do not, then that's what you have to go on. As a matter of rules, a member's rights are not restricted by a conflict of interest unless your bylaws say so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Who's Coming to Dinner

If the board has the power to discipline the President, then it's possible for the board to adopt a resolution preferring charges, setting a date for trial, and suspending the President's duties and privileges until that time. But this is very serious business outlined in RONR Chapter XX. Outside of this formal process, they don't have the right to exclude the President from any meeting if she is a member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Guest Linda said:

I was pretty sure I read something to that fact.  We have 2 of our BOD severely attacking our President.  They have filed one complaint  that was ruled not valid due the fact it wasn't signed.  They are now getting ready to file another one.  These complaints are related to stuff that happened in 2015 (same President with an almost completely different BOD).  These two have decided that "someone needs to pay" and are now telling our President that she is only able to participate in the hearing but nothing else.  These same two are trying to inhibit the VP from attending as well since they are friends.  "Conflict of interest".  If the current BOD accepts to hear the complaint, I would like to be able to reference the location in RONR that would explain that the President can sit in.  Are you able to do that or is it only customary to give a yes or no answer?

If the President is being removed through the formal disciplinary procedures in Ch. XX of RONR, it is correct that at the trial itself, the accused may only be present for the trial, not for the consideration of guilt and the penalty. It must be understood, however, that the trial is the last step in a lengthy disciplinary process, and the accused has full rights to be present during the earlier steps of this process. If the President is being removed through a simple motion to remove him from office (which may be an option, depending on how your bylaws word the term of office for officers), the accused may be present throughout the entirety of the proceedings. If your organization is using a customized procedure, you'll need to check your rules, but I would say the accused has the right to be present, unless your rules provide otherwise.

Additionally, I would note that so far as RONR is concerned, only the membership (not two individual board members) may file charges against a member, and only the membership (not the board) may hear those charges, unless the membership has delegated this authority to the board, or to a trial committee appointed for the purpose. Your rules may vary.

I would also say that, while he has a right to be present, the President should relinquish the chair during the consideration of any disciplinary proceedings against him, since his appearance of impartiality will be compromised. Since the VP's impartiality is apparently also in question (albeit on fairly weak grounds, in my view), it may be appropriate to appoint someone else as a Chairman Pro Tempore, but I will leave that to the VP's best judgment.

Finally, the notion that the VP is prohibited from attending is absolute nonsense. RONR provides that members who have a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members (and I would not define simple friendship as such an interest), should not vote, but they still have the right to. They certainly have the right to speak in debate and to attend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys.  This whole thing has become a nightmare. 

Our C&B allows for any member to bring charges against another member.  in 2015 the PPM discussed the disciplinary process but that expired and the committee never finished the 2016 or 2017 for acceptance. (This club is in a nightmare of trouble.  The President was falsely removed from her position in late 2015-2016 and it required legal measures to be employed to fix the problem.  The replacement BOD did not create these documents. We have a whole new BOD.)  However, in the past the BOD heard all of the charges.  Our membership is all over the country and as we are reconstructing, we have no annual meeting.  Does the fact that we no longer have a PPM push the discipline matter back to the membership?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 7:48 PM, Alexis Hunt said:

Page 47, ll. 21-31 gives the best you'll see in RONR about it. Your bylaws may provide additional rules (it's not uncommon to specify conflict of interest rules in bylaws), but if they do not, then that's what you have to go on. As a matter of rules, a member's rights are not restricted by a conflict of interest unless your bylaws say so.

Thanks Alexis.  This section is really confusing as it relates to voting.  I am finding this to be so hard to understand and the more I look, the more confused I get.  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. :)

Our C&B does not discuss conflict of interest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Linda, what is the PPM?

And what is the C&B?  I'm assuming that means "Constitution and Bylaws", but it would be nice if you spell those things out for us.

It seems you have very customized bylaws when it comes to discipline and removing officers.  Those provisions trump any conflicting provisions in RONR.  In addition, we cannot interpret your bylaws for you.  That is something only your society can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Guest Linda, what is the PPM?

And what is the C&B?  I'm assuming that means "Constitution and Bylaws", but it would be nice if you spell those things out for us.

It seems you have very customized bylaws when it comes to discipline and removing officers.  Those provisions trump any conflicting provisions in RONR.  In addition, we cannot interpret your bylaws for you.  That is something only your society can do.

I am sorry.  I guess I just assume (obviously) that everyone knows what I am talking about.

The PPM is our Policy and Procedures Manual which gives detailed descriptions of the rules for our procedures.  Our Bylaws reference them quite often.  In this particular case, our Bylaws allow a member to file a complaint.  It then references the PPM we don't have  (They expired in 2015) in order to spell out how to handle disciplinary action.  I am assuming since our PPM is not valid, that we revert to RONR for the disciplinary process itself?

I don't know if this question pertains to this forum but is it common, or a beneficial practice to have the Bylaws deliberately vague to put the actual "how to" in the PPM or is that a bit dangerous?  The Bylaws were changed in 2015 to remove the details regarding disciplinary action which subsequently moved them to the PPM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry about the incorrect reference!

It is up to your organization to interpret its own rules, and that can only be properly done by taking them all into account. You may find the principles of interpretation on pages 588-591 to be helpful.

It is normally dangerous for one document to refer to a document of a lower class, because the second document is easier to amend than the first document so the reference may become out of date. It is fine for them to say something like "Discipline procedures may be specified in the Policy & Procedure Manual," to make it clear that those rules can be changed at a lower level (although if it does, it should also clearly define what the Policy & Procedure Manual. But if the bylaws say "The discipline procedures are specified in the Policy & Procedure Manual," then you would have a challenge to interpret it. One could, for instance, make an argument that in the presence of that wording in the bylaws, the discipline procedures cannot expire because that would conflict with the requirement in the bylaws that discipline procedures be specified in the Policy & Procedure Manual.

If the organization agrees with the fact that it currently has no Policy & Procedure Manual, then it has to determine which discipline procedures to follow. If your bylaws explicitly adopt RONR as the parliamentary authority, then it seems to me that it would be a sensible to interpret the procedures in section 63 as governing, perhaps with minimal modifications as required by the bylaws such as to allow "any member to file a complaint".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2017 at 5:55 PM, Guest Linda said:

I am sorry.  I guess I just assume (obviously) that everyone knows what I am talking about.

The PPM is our Policy and Procedures Manual which gives detailed descriptions of the rules for our procedures.  Our Bylaws reference them quite often.  In this particular case, our Bylaws allow a member to file a complaint.  It then references the PPM we don't have  (They expired in 2015) in order to spell out how to handle disciplinary action.  I am assuming since our PPM is not valid, that we revert to RONR for the disciplinary process itself?

What do you mean when you say that the Policy and Procedures Manual "expired?" Is that a thing in your organization's rules? Generally speaking, rules do not expire.

On 4/15/2017 at 5:55 PM, Guest Linda said:

I don't know if this question pertains to this forum but is it common, or a beneficial practice to have the Bylaws deliberately vague to put the actual "how to" in the PPM or is that a bit dangerous?  The Bylaws were changed in 2015 to remove the details regarding disciplinary action which subsequently moved them to the PPM.

It's not unusual, and it normally works out fine. The dangerous part is this business of your Policy and Procedure Manual potentially "expiring." If that is indeed possible, then it would be extremely dangerous to refer to it, since the bylaws might end up referring to a document which does not exist.

On 4/15/2017 at 6:28 PM, Alexis Hunt said:

If your bylaws explicitly adopt RONR as the parliamentary authority, then it seems to me that it would be a sensible to interpret the procedures in section 63 as governing, perhaps with minimal modifications as required by the bylaws such as to allow "any member to file a complaint".

I don't know that I would describe this as a "minimal" modification. Allowing a single member to bring charges essentially eliminates several steps of the disciplinary process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

. .  . I don't know that I would describe this as a "minimal" modification. Allowing a single member to bring charges essentially eliminates several steps of the disciplinary process. 

This brings us back to the statement by Alexis hunt that all other provisions of the chapter XX disciplinary proceedings of RONR remain in effect with the single modification that any member can prefer charges.

Assuming that the disciplinary procedures outlined in the policy and procedures manual have indeed expired, what is your opinion as to whether the chapter XX disciplinary procedures would control with the single modification that a single member can prefer disciplinary charges?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I don't know that I would describe this as a "minimal" modification. Allowing a single member to bring charges essentially eliminates several steps of the disciplinary process.

"Minimal" in the sense of "no more than is necessary to bring things into compliance with the bylaws". It also depends how someone interprets "file a complaint". I could see someone arguing that that merely amounts to the right to have a complaint studied by an investigative committee, rather than preferring charges, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

This brings us back to the statement by Alexis hunt that all other provisions of the chapter XX disciplinary proceedings of RONR remain in effect with the single modification that any member can prefer charges.

Assuming that the disciplinary procedures outlined in the policy and procedures manual have indeed expired, what is your opinion as to whether the chapter XX disciplinary procedures would control with the single modification that a single member can prefer disciplinary charges?

If all that is said in the organization's rules is that a single member can prefer charges, then yes, I would think that the rest of Ch. XX which is still applicable would apply.

4 hours ago, Alexis Hunt said:

"Minimal" in the sense of "no more than is necessary to bring things into compliance with the bylaws". It also depends how someone interprets "file a complaint". I could see someone arguing that that merely amounts to the right to have a complaint studied by an investigative committee, rather than preferring charges, for instance.

Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...