Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Disciplinary Committee


Guest bluegardenia

Recommended Posts

Guest bluegardenia

Our organization has received official letters of complaint against 2 different members.  According to our bylaws, this adjudication of these complaints will be by the Disciplinary Committee.  Our bylaws define this committee as consisting of all officers (6) in addition to one representative from each chapter of the organization (26) for a total of 32 attendees.  The number to make a quorum is 10 members (not 10 chapters).

The members of the BOD each have a complete copy of the charges and the letters of response from those against whom official complaints have been lodged.   We plan on reading the original letters of complaint, the letters of notification to those against whom complaints were lodged, their responses and provide the proofs substantiating the charges at the meeting.

My question:  Should we provide each of the chapter reps with a complete copy of the material as well?  Should we then collect all papers at the close of the meeting, to try to keep details confidential?

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The information should at least be available to the members of the committee.  The committee can order that copies be given to each member of the committee, so I would suggest that copies be made, if they would prefer reading them directly.  It would be advisable to collect them afterward, if they are given out.

 

While do not necessarily recommend this, you could number each set, and have the members "sign out" the documents.  I will stress that this  would be optional and nowhere required in RONR.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Who's Coming to Dinner

RONR does raise the specter of libel in connection with disciplinary procedures. You should be very careful that none of the written complaints or other committee materials find their way into the hands of the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question to those who have responded: Who should have the ultimate authority to decide whether (A) copies will actually be distributed, (B) whether said copies will be numbered and signed for and (C) whether said copies shall be collected at the end of the meeting? The president? The board? The "prosecution team"? The committee itself? Or some other body?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2017 at 0:03 PM, Richard Brown said:

Question to those who have responded: Who should have the ultimate authority to decide whether (A) copies will actually be distributed, (B) whether said copies will be numbered and signed for and (C) whether said copies shall be collected at the end of the meeting? The president? The board? The "prosecution team"? The committee itself? Or some other body?

The committee would make such decisions, although the parent assembly may also give instructions on such matters if it wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On May 27, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

RONR does raise the specter of libel in connection with disciplinary procedures. You should be very careful that none of the written complaints or other committee materials find their way into the hands of the public.

Unless the accused wish for the complaints/charges/proceedings to be open. Otherwise you get into 'secret trial'/Star Chamber territory. If the accused wish to have secret/executive session proceedings, that's his or her right. But not the reverse.

Harper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Guest Harper said:

Unless the accused wish for the complaints/charges/proceedings to be open. Otherwise you get into 'secret trial'/Star Chamber territory. If the accused wish to have secret/executive session proceedings, that's his or her right. But not the reverse.

The rules requiring the secrecy of disciplinary proceedings are intended to protect both the accused and the society. In order to have a trial in open session, rather than in executive session, both the accused and the society (or the committee, in this case) would have to agree to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

The rules requiring the secrecy of disciplinary proceedings are intended to protect both the accused and the society. In order to have a trial in open session, rather than in executive session, both the accused and the society (or the committee, in this case) would have to agree to this.

I believe legally that is not the case. The burden of proof is on the accuser, at least in the U.S. And secret trials run counter to our basic concept of due process. RONR's trial procedures are well crafted, obviously written and reviewed by lawyers. But I will have to respectfully disagree with you on the secrecy provisions.

Harper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

I believe legally that is not the case. The burden of proof is on the accuser, at least in the U.S. And secret trials run counter to our basic concept of due process. RONR's trial procedures are well crafted, obviously written and reviewed by lawyers. But I will have to respectfully disagree with you on the secrecy provisions.

Harper

Well, you shouldn't. Josh Martin has it exactly right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

I believe legally that is not the case. The burden of proof is on the accuser, at least in the U.S. And secret trials run counter to our basic concept of due process. RONR's trial procedures are well crafted, obviously written and reviewed by lawyers. But I will have to respectfully disagree with you on the secrecy provisions.

You seem to be under the assumption that the rules for criminal trials in a court of law and disciplinary trials in a society are the same. I'm not sure where you got this idea, but it is mistaken. In a disciplinary trial in a society, the accused has a number of rights in connection with his trial, but he does not have the right to demand a public trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, you shouldn't. Josh Martin has it exactly right.

Actually I should, sir.

Nearly 10 years ago, I was falsely accused of sexual harassment. I spent nearly a decade trying to clear my name - and finally did so a year ago.

But every time I tried to find out the specifics of the accusation, I was told that my tribunal was held in executive session, thus any information about it was privileged. I eventually found the accusation in the records of the law firm representing the organization. The accusation was easy to dismiss because, it turns out, I wasn't even in the country where the accusation when it was made.

Granted, there was a perversion of RONR's trial rules (I wasn't notified to defend myself, for instance), but the point that is relevant: On the pretext of executive session I wasn't permitted to see the records that could have cost me my marriage and my career.

Your rules are good, sir. But they are not infallible. And their implementation relies on the good judgment and honesty of the individuals who use them.

I spent several years in court trying to find out what I was accused of. And you should know that the organization's attorney cited RONR and executive session (from a foreign language edition) as justification for not telling me.

In the end, a friend dumped the records in my lap.

Secret trials are bad. And secret trials run by non-legal people who don't understand evidentiary rules and concepts such as recusal can do irreparable damage.

I always appreciate your comments.

Harper

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The accused has the right, under the rules in RONR, to be advised of the charges against him, to be afforded a reasonable time to prepare his defense, to appear and defend himself, to be represented by counsel*, and to speak and produce witnesses in his own defense. The point being made in this thread, however, is that the accused has no right to have a trial in open session, rather than in executive session, if the society (or the committee, in this case) does not agree to it.

-----------------------------------

* But "Defense counsel can be attorney(s) or not, but must be member(s) of the society unless the trial body (that is, the assembly or the trial committee as the case may be) by vote agrees to permit attorney(s) who are not member(s) to act in this capacity."  (RONR, 11th ed. p. 664)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The accused has the right, under the rules in RONR, to be advised of the charges against him, to be afforded a reasonable time to prepare his defense, to appear and defend himself, to be represented by counsel*, and to speak and produce witnesses in his own defense. The point being made in this thread, however, is that the accused has no right to have a trial in open session, rather than in executive session, if the society (or the committee, in this case) does not agree to it.

-----------------------------------

* But "Defense counsel can be attorney(s) or not, but must be member(s) of the society unless the trial body (that is, the assembly or the trial committee as the case may be) by vote agrees to permit attorney(s) who are not member(s) to act in this capacity."  (RONR, 11th ed. p. 664)

And what if the society disagrees? We have no trial? Or we have a trial in absentia? And without a record, audio or written, how do you know if what people said is true? The average person doesn't understand legal nuances even in the presence of an attorney. There is virtually no sanction if someone didn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And as you know from your day job, you will pick things up in a transcript that you might otherwise miss. 

Anyway, I respectfully disagree, particularly with respect to professional associations.

Cheers.

Harper

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Guest Harper said:

And what if the society disagrees? We have no trial? Or we have a trial in absentia?

If the accused requests to have the trial in open session, the society refuses, and the accused subsequently refuses to attend the trial, the trial must still be held, but the accused will not be present.

1 hour ago, Guest Harper said:

And without a record, audio or written, how do you know if what people said is true? The average person doesn't understand legal nuances even in the presence of an attorney. There is virtually no sanction if someone didn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And as you know from your day job, you will pick things up in a transcript that you might otherwise miss. 

The assembly just has to do the best it can. It can order that a transcript be kept if it wishes.

As for sanctions for lying, this would be grounds for disciplinary action.

1 hour ago, Guest Harper said:

Anyway, I respectfully disagree, particularly with respect to professional associations.

Okay, but the rule is what it is, whether you like the rule or not. If you feel so strongly about it, you can try to have organizations you are a member of adopt their own rules on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

If the accused requests to have the trial in open session, the society refuses, and the accused subsequently refuses to attend the trial, the trial must still be held, but the accused will not be present.

The assembly just has to do the best it can. It can order that a transcript be kept if it wishes.

 

Can the accused? And can the accused demand that it be made available? It seems to me that the rules are designed, at least on the secrecy issue, to protect the powers that be in the organization. My experience has been that transparency is the best way to insure ethical conduct among management.

Cheers

Harper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Guest Harper said:

Can the accused? And can the accused demand that it be made available? It seems to me that the rules are designed, at least on the secrecy issue, to protect the powers that be in the organization. My experience has been that transparency is the best way to insure ethical conduct among management.

Cheers

Harper

My experience, which has been vicarious, is just the opposite.     In cases where there have been public statements, I have also seen suits filed. 

An assembly cannot determine criminal  guilt and may discipline for matters that are not criminal.    The rule protects the member by not publicly accusing him of some perceived wrongdoing.    The assembly is protected by not engaging in actions that could constitute libel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, J. J. said:

My experience, which has been vicarious, is just the opposite.     In cases where there have been public statements, I have also seen suits filed. 

An assembly cannot determine criminal  guilt and may discipline for matters that are not criminal.    The rule protects the member by not publicly accusing him of some perceived wrongdoing.    The assembly is protected by not engaging in actions that could constitute libel.

It doesn't protect the member if he can't have access to all records to prove his/her innocence. I don't know how many thousands of organizations use RONR for handling disciplinary matters. But I do think there's a difference between somebody who gets into a bar fight because he's had too much to drink and needs a cooling off period and somebody who's accused financial malfeasance or some other breach. Mr. Martin's comment that the assembly does 'the best it can' is probably the main truism. 

Harpet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Guest Harper said:

It doesn't protect the member if he can't have access to all records to prove his/her innocence. I don't know how many thousands of organizations use RONR for handling disciplinary matters. But I do think there's a difference between somebody who gets into a bar fight because he's had too much to drink and needs a cooling off period and somebody who's accused financial malfeasance or some other breach. Mr. Martin's comment that the assembly does 'the best it can' is probably the main truism. 

Harpet

Well, if  everything is in executive session, nobody outside of the society will know.

Further, the society cannot establish legal guilt, or innocence. 

If the member is kicked out, the society can't stop him from talking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

And what if the society disagrees? We have no trial?

OF course not.  We have a trial; and the accused gets notified, and all those other rights that Mr Honemann named (and maybe some more) ...

 

8 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

Or we have a trial in absentia?

Whyever would it be in absentia, unless the accused chooses to absent him- or herself?

 

8 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

And without a record, audio or written,

Harper, wherever do you get the idea that there will be no record??!?

 

8 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

how do you know if what people said is true?

(This is kinda tangential ... what difference does it make whether there's a record or not, in determining whether people told the truth?)

 

6 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

And can the accused demand that it be made available?

As long as the accused is a member, he can see the minutes. 

 

6 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

It seems to me that the rules are designed, at least on the secrecy issue, to protect the powers that be in the organization

Harper, really, I don't think so; and if you think of it as confidentiality, rather than "secrecy," I think you'll see that it protects everybody equally, if not actually protecting the accused more than the society.  As JJ said (with characteristic perth), "The rule protects the member by not publicly accusing him of some perceived wrongdoing."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

Can the accused? And can the accused demand that it be made available?

No to both questions.

13 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

It seems to me that the rules are designed, at least on the secrecy issue, to protect the powers that be in the organization. My experience has been that transparency is the best way to insure ethical conduct among management.

They are designed to protect the society and the accused.

"If (after trial) a member is expelled or an officer is removed from office, the society has the right to disclose that fact—circulating it only to the extent required for the protection of the society or, possibly, of other organizations. Neither the society nor any of its members has the right to make public the charge of which an officer or member has been found guilty, or to reveal any other details connected with the case. To make any of the facts public may constitute libel. A trial by the society cannot legally establish the guilt of the accused, as understood in a court of law; it can only establish his guilt as affecting the society's judgment of his fitness for membership or office." (RONR, 11th. ed., pg. 655)

11 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

It doesn't protect the member if he can't have access to all records to prove his/her innocence.

The secrecy rules are not concerned with the member proving his innocence. That is what the trial itself is for. Once the trial is over, there isn't really anything for the accused to do, at least from a parliamentary perspective (unless, perhaps there was some grave procedural error in the trial). Instead, the rules are intended to prevent the charges against the accused, and any other details from the trial, from being made public.

7 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

Harper, wherever do you get the idea that there will be no record??!?

Yes, there are minutes, but the records that the OP seems to be thinking of are audio recordings or verbatim written transcripts. The minutes are a far cry from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

Harper, wherever do you get the idea that there will be no record??!?

(This is kinda tangential ... what difference does it make whether there's a record or not, in determining whether people told the truth?)

As long as the accused is a member, he can see the minutes. 

Harper, really, I don't think so; and if you think of it as confidentiality, rather than "secrecy," I think you'll see that it protects everybody equally, if not actually protecting the accused more than the society.  As JJ said (with characteristic perth), "The rule protects the member by not publicly accusing him of some perceived wrongdoing."

 

Harper, wherever do you get the idea that there will be no record??!?

Under the concept of executive session, as I understand it, one cannot take executive session records outside of the organization. If the accused needs legal advice because of an official slander or a false charge, the accused is 'honor-bound' not to disclose that he's been slandered? libeled? falsely accused?

I understand that an organization might wish for members to sign nondisclosure agreements, but I doubt that those NDAs are legally valid if facts showing impropriety surface after the fact. That's why we have whistleblower laws.

 

(This is kinda tangential ... what difference does it make whether there's a record or not, in determining whether people told e truth?)

We're talking about the rights of the accused, not the rights of the organization. So to answer your question: because - and I will use my case - I couldn't prove my innocence until I saw the record.

 

As long as the accused is a member, he can see the minutes. 

Not if he didn't attend the meeting. And then he's not permitted to take those minutes - assuming the minutes are an accurate representation of what was said, not just a summary - to counsel or some other professional for review.

 

Harper, really, I don't think so; and if you think of it as confidentiality, rather than "secrecy," I think you'll see that it protects everybody equally, if not actually protecting the accused more than the society.  As JJ said (with characteristic perth), "The rule protects the member by not publicly accusing him of some perceived wrongdoing."

I respectfully disagree. And to JJ's comment: "The rule protects the member by not publicly accusing him of some perceived wrongdoing." She should have qualified: Unless the member wishes to be publicly accused. If the accusation is serious enough and crosses the line into defamation of character, the member may wish to address the matter publicly - and has a legal right to do so.

Harper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Guest Harper said:

Under the concept of executive session, as I understand it, one cannot take executive session records outside of the organization. If the accused needs legal advice because of an official slander or a false charge, the accused is 'honor-bound' not to disclose that he's been slandered? libeled? falsely accused?

I understand that an organization might wish for members to sign nondisclosure agreements, but I doubt that those NDAs are legally valid if facts showing impropriety surface after the fact. That's why we have whistleblower laws.

Yes, no one may disclose what happened in executive session to individuals outside of the organization.

2 minutes ago, Guest Harper said:

Not if he didn't attend the meeting. And then he's not permitted to take those minutes - assuming the minutes are an accurate representation of what was said, not just a summary - to counsel or some other professional for review.

If the accused is still a member of the body which held the trial, he has a right to view the minutes, even if he did not attend the meeting (which he has a right to do).

The minutes are, however, a record of what was done, not what was said.

5 minutes ago, Guest Harper said:

Unless the member wishes to be publicly accused. If the accusation is serious enough and crosses the line into defamation of character, the member may wish to address the matter publicly - and has a legal right to do so.

We can't discuss legal issues here, but the rules in RONR are intended to protect the accused and the society, and therefore, the trial may be made public only by mutual agreement between those two parties.

You seem to be of the opinion that the rules should be designed to protect only the accused, and that therefore the accused should be able to demand a public trial. You are entitled to your opinion, but that is not the rule in RONR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

Yes, no one may disclose what happened in executive session to individuals outside of the organization.

If the accused is still a member of the body which held the trial, he has a right to view the minutes, even if he did not attend the meeting (which he has a right to do).

The minutes are, however, a record of what was done, not what was said.

We can't discuss legal issues here, but the rules in RONR are intended to protect the accused and the society, and therefore, the trial may be made public only by mutual agreement between those two parties.

You seem to be of the opinion that the rules should be designed to protect only the accused, and that therefore the accused should be able to demand a public trial. You are entitled to your opinion, but that is not the rule in RONR.

Yes, no one may disclose what happened in executive session to individuals outside of the organization.

Mr. Martin, what if someone says something that it potentially illegal or defamatory?

The minutes are, however, a record of what was done, not what was said.

Defamation involves what was said. 

We can't discuss legal issues here, but the rules in RONR are intended to protect the accused and the society, and therefore, the trial may be made public only by mutual agreement between those two parties.

That may or may not be. It depends on what people say in an executive session. Technology has passed us by. There were no smart phones when Gen. Robert wrote his first edition. And there was no internet. People in official positions need to be careful what they say.

You seem to be of the opinion that the rules should be designed to protect only the accused, and that therefore the accused should be able to demand a public trial. You are entitled to your opinion, but that is not the rule in RONR.

The question always goes back to Page 16, Mr. Martin - where the law and RONR part ways. RONR is an excellent guide - and particularly your trial procedures are well-crafted for laymen - but they can't replace a legal professional. And they're not expected to. They're a manual or guide with clearly defined limits per Page 16. 

Harper

 

 

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...