Hal9000

Thank you all for your input! It seems as though ASPA may be exactly what was needed in this instance! An additional question: If the "board" imposed the suspension...Would the "board" make a motion at a "board meeting" to amend their previous motion?? Again, Thank you!

Gentlemen, Thank you all for your input on this matter! It has been a huge help in resolving this issue, so we can move along with other issues (Specifically, amending the By-Laws...) Thank you again! Hal

Exact wording is: GOVERNING BOARD The Governing Board also reserves the right to suspend members for conduct unbecoming a member and a gentleman. It is interesting to note that there is no mention of expulsion...But that is a matter for another day (albeit one that desperately needs to be addressed...)

The Bylaws grant the board the authority to suspend / remove. However such action is not ratified by the membership. It is decided and enacted at the board level.

Greetings, The bylaws are sadly lacking in any guidance...Except for, perhaps, enough to confuse things! I agree that an action that has been completed cannot be "undone", but speculate that the body (Board of Directors) that made the decision, can probably modify it.(as in, change the six (6) moths to three (3) months. Or "time served", so to speak...) The bylaws state that the board has the right to suspend / expel, but does not use the phrase "sole" or "exclusive" right. I fear this isn't much help.... Hal

Sir, The actual discipline (suspension / duration or expulsion) is set / decided exclusively by the board. It is not addressed in any way in the bylaws. Thank you! Hal

Greetings, I am not quite sure how to approach this question.... A particular organisation has bylaws, which grant the Board of Directors the power to suspend a member for "conduct unbecoming". OK, that's easy enough. This decision is not ratified by the membership - It is decided and executed at the board level (as per bylaws). The same bylaws make NO reference whatsoever to rescinding a disciplinary decision. The bylaws DO, however, refer to RONR as the parliamentary authority in all matters not specifically addressed by the bylaws. Scenario: The Board of Directors suspends a member for six (6) months. After three (3) months, the Board of Directors decides they were "too harsh", and wish to "adjust" the discipline (to three (3) months). Which brings us to my question:! Is such an action (Rescind a Board discipline decision) addressed in RONR as such, or is this strictly a bylaw interpretation? I am unsure, due to the fact that it is not specifically addressed in the bylaws. Any insight would be greatly appreciated in this matter! Thank you in advance! Hal

Thank you for your insight - I considered that this may be the "Rule in question', and reached the same conclusion, but as always, I truly appreciate the assistance. Thank you!

Thank you, Sir! I thought the member was mistaken, but wanted to be sure. Thank you again!

Greetings, In our society, our Bylaws refernce RONR for any situation "not covered" by the bylaws. Ok, that's pretty standard. We have a serious disciplinary problem, which concerns actions of the society's president. The actual nature of the offence is not pertinent here.... The governing board suspended the president after an extended "executive session" meeting (a quorum was present as per our bylaws - Per our bylaws, Quorum = 4, and must include either the president or the vice president - , there were 5 board members present, including the vice president) The vote was "unanimous" to suspend the president for 3 months. We have a member (who claims to be "well versed" in RONR, who claims that: "In the event of a disciplinary vote, or any issue involving the president - the vice president can not vote, or be considered as part of the quorum." When asked to provide a reference, page, etc from RONR, he simply replies "It's in there - I just don't know where..." This is likely to be brought up, and be an issue at an upcoming meeting. I would ask the members here - Does anyone know if this rule actually exists? I was unable to locate any rule that seems similar. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated! Thank you in advance!

Greetings! Please bear with me – this explanation is probably going to be longer than it needs to be, but I want to be sure I explain this correctly. My organization has two (2) levels of “membership”, as described below: <Primary> members: What would be thought of as “full” members. <Primary> members elect <Organization> officers, approve Bylaw changes, set <Organization> policy, and (in point of fact) are “owners” of the <Organization’s> facilities. All <Organization> business comes before the body of <Primary> members, and is ultimately disposed of at that level. <Secondary> members can only be accepted for membership by vote of the <Primary> membership. All privileges permitted the <Secondary> members are granted by, and may be revoked by, the <Primary> members, without exception. <Secondary> Members: Essentially members of a strictly “social” nature. They are free to make use of the recreational facilities owned by the <Organization>, and are permitted (on occasion) to select such things as a particular Band (or request a specific type of music), or perhaps they might select a particular “prize” to be given away in a raffle (*This* item rather than *that* item). <Secondary> members are not permitted to attend <Primary> member meetings, (They have neither voice nor vote in the operation of the <Organization>) They do not elect Board members or modify the bylaws. The <Primary> members hold a meeting of the <Organization> on the second Thursday of every month. This is the “Regular Meeting” of the <Organization>. <Secondary> members are not permitted to attend. There is a “meeting” of the <Secondary> members on the fourth Thursday of the month. No actual <Organization> business is transacted. They are informed of any changes made at the prior <Primary> meeting (if such changes would affect the <Secondary> members.) The <Primary> members may attend this meeting if they so choose. Most do not attend. To help in my explanation, here are three (3) excerpts from our bylaws: <Excerpt 1> NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS The nomination of officers will take place in September and October. The election of officers will take place in November and the installation of the new officers will take place in December of each year. The election shall be by secret ballot and majority vote of <Primary> Members present. <Excerpt 2> <SECONDARY> MEMBERSHIP DUES AND PRIVILEGES <Secondary> Members will be permitted to join the <Organization> by paying an initiation fee and dues. The amount of the initiation fee and dues are determined by the Governing Board. They may vote on social activities in the social quarters only. They must abide by <Organization> rules, Constitution, and By-laws. <Secondary> Members do not have equal privileges to <Primary> members. <Excerpt 3> When an officer of the <Organization> is absent for three consecutive regular meetings without being excused by the <Organization>, the President shall declare such office vacant and order an election to fill such vacancy. <End Bylaw Excerpts> (Please note: To excuse an officer from attendance, a vote would be taken at a <Primary> member meeting. The <Secondary> members would have NO input on this issue whatsoever.) And now – finally – the issue at hand: Regarding “Excerpt 3’ (above): A very small, yet vocal minority, has suggested that a vacancy spanning three meetings should be interpreted as “any” three meetings. Essentially, <Primary>, <Secondary>, <Primary> being the “three consecutive meetings”. I respectfully disagree. Since no actual business can be transacted at a <Secondary> meeting, I believe it is closer to a “Social Committee” meeting, or perhaps simply a “Social Event”. It does not constitute a “regular” meeting of the <Organization> It is my interpretation that the three consecutive meetings referred to, are the “Primary” meetings. As such, an officer would need to be absent for 3 consecutive <Primary> meetings (for all practical purposes, 3 months) for a vote to be required to fill the vacancy. So, the actual question: Is my interpretation correct? I thank you all in advance for your most valued opinions! Hal

Thank you very much for your input! I truly appreciate it!

I thank you all for your insight into this issue. While researching the problem, it has come to my attention that several "House Rules" were, in fact, added by "Executive Board Decision", and others were adopted by the membership by a simple majority vote at a regular meeting. Our Bylaws state: <Begin Excerpt> AMMENDMENTS: These By-Laws or any part thereof maybe amended by presenting in writing and said resolution to be read at the next two (2) meetings and notices thereof sent to all of the membership and upon the third reading, to pass must have two-thirds vote of all members present. <End Excerpt> Would I be correct in interpreting this to mean that our "House Rules", therefore, can NOT be considered part of the Bylaws? Or is this interpretation of precedence incorrect?