jcapps Posted May 1, 2017 at 12:58 AM Report Share Posted May 1, 2017 at 12:58 AM If a member admits to guilt or does something that warrant being suspended in a meeting in front of the membership does there have to be a investigation. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted May 1, 2017 at 02:20 AM Report Share Posted May 1, 2017 at 02:20 AM 1 hour ago, jcapps said: If a member admits to guilt or does something that warrant being suspended in a meeting in front of the membership does there have to be a investigation. Thoughts? I would think not, but stay tuned for other opinions. RONR specifies that there is no need for a trial if the member pleads guilty at the start of the trial meeting, but it is not clear if other stages of the disciplinary process may be skipped if the member admits guilt at an earlier stage. (The text seems to assume that a member will tender his resignation in such a case.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcapps Posted May 1, 2017 at 03:04 AM Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2017 at 03:04 AM 44 minutes ago, Josh Martin said: I would think not, but stay tuned for other opinions. RONR specifies that there is no need for a trial if the member pleads guilty at the start of the trial meeting, but it is not clear if other stages of the disciplinary process may be skipped if the member admits guilt at an earlier stage. (The text seems to assume that a member will tender his resignation in such a case.) Where would I find that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted May 1, 2017 at 03:23 AM Report Share Posted May 1, 2017 at 03:23 AM There need not be an investigation and formal trial for breaches of order committed in a meeting, "provided that any penalty is imposed promptly after the breach, since the witnesses are all present and make up the body that is to determine the penalty" (RONR, [11th ed.]. p. 646, ll. 30–33). Furthermore, the penalty may range up to suspension or expulsion (p. 647, l. 20). As to an admission of wrongdoing outside a meeting, I would think the formal process is required because the witnesses are not necessarily present and the body may wish to apportion the penalty according to the full evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted May 1, 2017 at 01:50 PM Report Share Posted May 1, 2017 at 01:50 PM 10 hours ago, jcapps said: Where would I find that? About skipping the trial? RONR, 11th ed., pg. 665. 10 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said: There need not be an investigation and formal trial for breaches of order committed in a meeting, "provided that any penalty is imposed promptly after the breach, since the witnesses are all present and make up the body that is to determine the penalty" (RONR, [11th ed.]. p. 646, ll. 30–33). Furthermore, the penalty may range up to suspension or expulsion (p. 647, l. 20). As to an admission of wrongdoing outside a meeting, I would think the formal process is required because the witnesses are not necessarily present and the body may wish to apportion the penalty according to the full evidence. Perhaps, but it may also be the case the body does not wish to apportion the penalty according to the full evidence, and is satisfied with acting on the member's admission of guilt. I would certainly agree that the assembly may choose to appoint an investigative committee even if the accused admits his guilt, but is the assembly required to do so? As I understand the rules, the purpose of the requirement for an investigative committee is to protect the right of the accused "that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 656) If the accused admits that the allegations are correct, this protection is not needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts