procedure and debate during disciplinary meeting

[Guest Larry]

Background: for removing someone from office (not membership) for cause, our governing documents say only that it be at a meeting called for that purpose and that 75% majority vote is required. This is an ecclesiastical office in an autonomous body (i.e., no other body has superior jurisdiction or can be appealed to).

Procedure that is planned:

According to the advice I have received in these forums, even though the moderator *could* declare the meeting closed to non-members (RONR, p. 92 ll 32-34), a motion to do so is expected, and will probably pass.

A given person (who also happens to be the moderator) will state the reasons and supporting evidence for removing the person from office. The evidence has been known to the respondent.

The respondent will be allowed to make his defense. (Question 1 pertains during this time)

(Question 2 pertains at this point)

The floor will be open for to allow members have their say. The moderator, having been the "prosecutor," ceases from advocacy and strictly moderates the meeting. (questions 1 and 3 pertain during this time)

The vote will be taken by secret ballot. (Question 4 pertains at this time)

The ballots will be collected, and read openly, one at a time, so that there is no question as to the total. (This balloting procedure has been our custom for election to or removal from this office.)

1. If the respondent wishes to have a non-member (a friend, not a legal representative) speak on his behalf after he has made his own statement, would that come during his response, or during the floor discussion which is open to members (after which time the non-member would leave)?

2. Should the member being disciplined be allowed to stay in the room during the floor debate? The closest analogy that comes to mind is jury deliberations, when the defendant is not present. However, the prosecutor is also not present in such a case. In our case, the "prosecutor" (the moderator) is still present. That is why I believe the moderator must cease from advocacy, although I believe the moderator must answer questions of evidence.

3. After the reasons for removing the member from office have been presented, and the member states his response, is it in order for a member to call the question? Or when would a motion to end debate be proper?

4. Should the member being disciplined be allowed to vote on what is clearly a matter concerning himself?

[Larry Cisar]

Background: for removing someone from office (not membership) for cause, our governing documents say only that it be at a meeting called for that purpose and that 75% majority vote is required. This is an ecclesiastical office in an autonomous body (i.e., no other body has superior jurisdiction or can be appealed to).

1. If the respondent wishes to have a non-member (a friend, not a legal representative) speak on his behalf after he has made his own statement, would that come during his response, or during the floor discussion which is open to members (after which time the non-member would leave)?

Page 639: witness for the prosecution then witnesses for the defense.

2. Should the member being disciplined be allowed to stay in the room during the floor debate? The closest analogy that comes to mind is jury deliberations, when the defendant is not present. However, the prosecutor is also not present in such a case. In our case, the "prosecutor" (the moderator) is still present. That is why I believe the moderator must cease from advocacy, although I believe the moderator must answer questions of evidence.

Page 639 e: The accused does not stay.

3. After the reasons for removing the member from office have been presented, and the member states his response, is it in order for a member to call the question? Or when would a motion to end debate be proper?

Yes.

4. Should the member being disciplined be allowed to vote on what is clearly a matter concerning himself?

No. Page 639

[Josh Martin]

Mr. Cisar, I don't believe the assembly would need to hold a formal trial. FAQ #20 states that an election may be rescinded if the Bylaws "contain other wording explicitly indicating that the officer may be removed before the term expires."

If that is indeed the case, then this is just a case of ASPA, and the answers to Questions 1, 2, and 4 are somewhat different.

1. If the respondent wishes to have a non-member (a friend, not a legal representative) speak on his behalf after he has made his own statement, would that come during his response, or during the floor discussion which is open to members (after which time the non-member would leave)?

Whether and when the non-member can speak or be present is up to the assembly. To allow the non-member to speak in debate would require a suspension of the rules (2/3 vote). (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 255, footnote)

2. Should the member being disciplined be allowed to stay in the room during the floor debate?

The member must be allowed to stay in the room. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 255, lines 22-28)

That is why I believe the moderator must cease from advocacy, although I believe the moderator must answer questions of evidence.

The "prosecutor" should not serve as the presiding officer, as this interferes with the presiding officer's duty of impartiality.

4. Should the member being disciplined be allowed to vote on what is clearly a matter concerning himself?

He should abstain but cannot be compelled to do so. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 394, lines 15-25)

[Larry Cisar]

We obviously are taking the situation in two different manners. I went with it being a disciplinary procedure and used Chapter XX. Josh took it as a simple removal from elected office. So follow the one that applies.