Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Investigating Committee


jcapps

Recommended Posts

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Who's Coming to Dinner

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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...