Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Disciplinary action steps?


Big Ed

Recommended Posts

Anyone care to point these out to me? I'm trying to better understand my position here.

 

Well, for instance, Part D fluctuates between saying a member "shall" lose their status or "shall" be reinstated and saying that the board will "review" the situation. So it's a bit unclear whether the loss of the status (and subsequent reinstatement) is automatic or if the board has a choice in the matter.

 

So the question is "Is the board chairman a director?".

 

It's unclear whether he is a director. You'd have to carefully read your bylaws to determine that. He's certainly an officer, though.

 

If so I could argue that the bylaws do allow for his removal, they do say "All directors and officers may be recalled".

 

Yes, you could argue that, but what makes it complicated is if your bylaws say, for instance, that "The Immediate Past President shall serve as ex officio chairman [or member] of the board," his status as chairman (or member) derives from being the Immediate Past President. Since this is simply a historical fact, he can't really be removed from being Immediate Past President. What is less clear (and has been the subject of considerable debate on this forum) is whether the IPP can be removed (or resign) from other positions derived from his status as IPP.

 

I'd note that most members of this forum (myself included) advise against giving any official status to the Immediate Past President. It causes more trouble than it's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

[big Ed, Post 24:]

Anyone care to point these out to me? I'm trying to better understand my position here.

Another probable contradiction is the bylaws saying, as Mr Martin offers in Post 19, "If it is indeed correct that your bylaws provide that members in poor standing only lose the right to vote and hold office ...", while another possible meaning, as I pointed out in Post 24, is that the loss of good standing instead entails losing two different rights. And it may be nitpicking, but it is not nailed down that loss of good standing is the same thing as being in bad standing.

Here's another. Section 4, Part B seems to say that the penalty for disgracing oneself is expulsion (kinda harsh, it seems to me, especially since disgrace is in the eye of the beholder -- amounting to what I sternly call gibberish), yet Part D says that violations of the section can result in probation. (Perhaps it means "vilations of this part," but what it says is "of the section." Another nomination for gibberish.)

Some more: Part E refers to violations "by any member or a second violation during a probationary time period." But since this applies to all members ("any member"), what sense does it make to also single out probationers? C'mon, Big Ed, just because I specified my objection to contradiction and gibberish doesn't mean that dumbness gets a pass, does it?

Thanks. I've decided not to declare I understand this until some time has passed, I need to read more and get more clarification.

Very good. The first thing you should do (after getting a little more sleep) is pick up your copy of RONR - In Brief and read it, at once. I always suggest you don't even leave the bookstore: just stand there for the hour or so and do your first reading of it then and there. No kidding. Don't go home, don't eat first, keep your car keys in your pocket. Move away from the cashier if you'd be in the way of the other customers there buying RONR. If you had done this, then you would have known what Point of Order and Appeal are when Mr Martin suggested them, without having to ask him to tell you; or, if you happened not to remember (which happens to all of us, except maybe Mr Martin), you would have had your copy right there, to look them up yourself (see them listed there in the Index -- Point of Order on p. 181, near the top of the second column, and Appeal on p. 177, in the middle of the second column) so you could let Mr Martin get on with the rest of his typing.

Then (which maybe should be a week or so from now), you can come back to this website forum and start answering other people's questions yourself, citing the pertinent pages in your RONR-IB for support, confirming in your own mind, and for everyone on the Internet to see, that you know what you're talking about. (And maybe let Mr Martin and Guest_Edgar and me a day or two off one of these years, maybe we'll go fishing in West Virginia or something.)

Then (or maybe in the same trip, 'cause you know you will eventually) get your copy of RONR itself, and get started on it. Read ten pages a day. Period. If you do, you will have read every word there in a couple of months. (Even less time, if you sometimes read more than ten pages in a sitting, and if you skip sections of little immediate interest, like holding mass meetings, dissolving an organization, or organizing and conducting a convention. And forget the material about feeding board members to crocodiles, it's only an insert in my copy anyway.) ANd ask questions about it here.

... Oh, and that calculation in Post 22 should have been "168 hours in a week."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I brought this up at the general meeting Tuesday, starting with "It's time to end the secrecy". Then telling the story starting when I was asked to leave the board meeting in April. Myself and the chairman of the board were the only ones who spoke, aside from one club member briefly asking us to take it to a board meeting because it was too personal. I kept saying the club needed to know what was going on, the chairman kept trying to take it off line, offering to talk to me outside after the meeting, or at a board meeting. You could have heard a pin drop other than myself and the chairman of the board, there were about 40 members present and they were paying close attention(many had no knowledge of this as the chairman directed the secretary to stop reading board minutes in general meetings).

 

I was able to stay calm, on point, and not swear or make personal attacks, I stayed matter of fact. The chairman of the board got very angry, and even turned red. One point I focused on was my not being allowed to hear allegations and defend myself, the chairman responded by saying he did that because hearing the allegations would have been too much for me. There were many things he said that didn't make any sense, and I kept pointing those out. At one point when he said I should come to a board meeting to talk about it, I said "If you're not interested in what I have to say before making a decision, why should I think you're capable of being objective, it's ridiculous". This also made him mad. 

 

After the meeting I was outside talking to another member, and the chairman came up and stood there for a couple minutes. Neither of us payed attention to him, and he left. He was still steaming, and walked it off in the parking lot before leaving. I think he's so out of touch I can't get through to him, that's why I went to the general membership.

 

I didn't ask the membership to decide anything just yet, elections are next month, and I want to see how things go first. I am also considering pointing out what officers and board members supported the chairman right before the vote, so the membership can vote accordingly. One of my friends got himself on the ballot for both vice president, and board member. He plans to get on the board of directors one way or the other and undo what this board did. Three current board members were left off of the ballot at their request. One of those supported me and called what the board did "sniveling and whining", one kept quiet, and the third was a big instagator of all this(btw, he was absent from the general meeting).

 

The feedback I got after the meeting was all in support of me. One member said he and his wife were both pretty upset that I wasn't allowed to defend myself. I asked another if he thought anybody would support the chairman, and he said "Not after last night, maybe a few on the board, but not the club". I feel pretty good about this right now.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Best I can tell one board member, the vice president, and the chairman of the board were the only ones in favor of the disciplinary action against me. I asked a board member how many voted in favor, and against. He said "we didn't vote", a former member says without motion, second and vote recorded in the minutes they got nothing. Meaning I'm not a member in poor standing, it's not valid. Any truth to this? If so, there would be no need to undo what they did, just point out that it's not valid, and try to increase understing of how things work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll also suggest that this business of feedback after the meeting means you're not getting enough support from these people during the meeting itself.  It looks a lot better (because it is a lot better) if other people are sticking up for you as a matter of principle, because you're in the right, than if you're speaking for yourself and you're the only one, because that looks partisan and personal -- even if you're actually sticking to the issues.  There's no excuse for the hearing-a-pin-drop situation:  this was not a dialogue between you and the president, with everyone else a mute audience -- the others actually had an obligation (citation available on request) to put their two-cents in, which they neglected.

 

(But they told you later.  Goody for them.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll also suggest that this business of feedback after the meeting means you're not getting enough support from these people during the meeting itself.  It looks a lot better (because it is a lot better) if other people are sticking up for you as a matter of principle, because you're in the right, than if you're speaking for yourself and you're the only one, because that looks partisan and personal -- even if you're actually sticking to the issues.  There's no excuse for the hearing-a-pin-drop situation:  this was not a dialogue between you and the president, with everyone else a mute audience -- the others actually had an obligation (citation available on request) to put their two-cents in, which they neglected.

 

(But they told you later.  Goody for them.)

I thought this myself, them saying "you were doing so good you didn't need any help" left me feeling like I was standing alone, If they agree, they need to say so. You're right on the typo, I was tired when I wrote that. Thanks.

 

Back to my original question, is the "member in poor standing" not valid because process wasn't followed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best I can tell one board member, the vice president, and the chairman of the board were the only ones in favor of the disciplinary action against me. I asked a board member how many voted in favor, and against. He said "we didn't vote", a former member says without motion, second and vote recorded in the minutes they got nothing. Meaning I'm not a member in poor standing, it's not valid. Any truth to this? If so, there would be no need to undo what they did, just point out that it's not valid, and try to increase understing of how things work.

 

They could have taken the action by unanimous consent, which permits an action to be taken without a formal vote if there is no objection.

 

The minutes are just a record. If action was taken and the minutes do not reflect that, all that means is the minutes need to be corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could have taken the action by unanimous consent, which permits an action to be taken without a formal vote if there is no objection.

 

The minutes are just a record. If action was taken and the minutes do not reflect that, all that means is the minutes need to be corrected.

Could this action be taken without a motion, and second?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could this action be taken without a motion, and second?

 

Yes, action can be taken by unanimous consent without any motion having been made, but this is really beside the point. It is first necessary to know exactly what did, in fact, happen. I'm afraid that we cannot be of any help with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So even if those supporting the action were in the minority, because there was no objection or anyone calling for a vote, the action stands?

 

If the chair asks for unanimous consent and no one raises an objection, then the action is adopted. If someone opposes the action, they're supposed to raise an objection.

 

But this is merely speculation. I'm not sure whether this was, in fact, what the board member meant by "We didn't vote."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never heard the term unanimous consent used in one of our meetings, and think most members think a vote is required.

But you yourself are familiar with it by now, Big Ed, from seeing it discussed there on p. 68 of your RONR-In Brief, yes?

 

And of course a vote is required, in general, but unanimous consent is a perfectly valid time-saving method.

 

But this is an example of the lots of stuff that your fellow members are unaware of, to their significant loss.  For an other example, "I'm not certain, the chairman directed the others not to discuss it. (Post 44)," to which Guest_Edgar responded archly, with admirable restraint.  RONR gives the chairman no authority like this, and I doubt your own rules do either -- but out of everyone's ignorance, he gets away with it, because he tells them what to do and they comply, with equal doses of good-hearted assumption of good faith and appalling imbecilic naivete'.

 

Ooo, I'm gettin' grumpy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this is an example of the lots of stuff that your fellow members are unaware of, to their significant loss.  For an other example, "I'm not certain, the chairman directed the others not to discuss it. (Post 44)," to which Guest_Edgar responded archly, with admirable restraint.  RONR gives the chairman no authority like this, and I doubt your own rules do either -- but out of everyone's ignorance, he gets away with it, because he tells them what to do and they comply, with equal doses of good-hearted assumption of good faith and appalling imbecilic naivete'.

 

Well, this might not be the chairman taking matters into his own hands. The board may well have decided to enter executive session - in fact, that would have been a very good idea since they were discussing discipline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I talked with the board member mentioned above, He said the chairman and two others were discussing wether or not to put me on probation, in a previous meeting he had already voiced his objection to doing so. Not being aware of unanimous consent he thought his objection would be in the form of a no vote, when no vote was taken he thought they were postponing it for now. There was no motion, no second, no vote, and no mention of unanimous consent. When I explained unanimous consent, he said he had never heard of it, and he had been board chairman himself a few years ago(for 2 years).

 

So I guess the bottom line is, does someone need to say "we are using unanimous consent"? Or is simple silence after a suggestion supposed to be taken as "this action will be taken"? We had this one board member and probably others leave thinking no action would be taken, because no vote was conducted.

 

The chairmans actions have made it pretty clear he isn't going to let any rules get in the way of what he wants to do. I was pretty sure already he couldn't direct others not to discuss it. And I already asked my board member friend why he didn't challenge the chairman as well. That's when he said he already made his position clear, and he thought his no vote would be his objection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Mostly in response to Post 48:)

 

Big Ed, there is great weight given in parliamentary procedure to pronouncements by the chair, when unchallenged; and it gets awkward, and/or nebulous, and/or arguable, when maybe he says something almost out of the blue, like now, and nobody dissents (see FAQ 18 or Official Interpretation 18, or thereabouts, I'm not gonna look them up right now):  it can be interpreted, especially hours or days later, as if the assembly had adopted what he said as having been done by unanimous consent. 

 

     -- [Edit:  Please see note below, about the typo in this paragraph]

But we have to see this in perspective.  All this discussion of unanimous consent presupposes that it is understood and accepted by the assembly that it has, indeed, enacted something.  More likely, the assembly heard the statement of the chair as a proposal, which, having so support (greeted by silence), dropped like a lead balloon -- meaning that it failed utterly -- but the other point of view is that, on the contrary, it sailingly was adopted by nobody objecting.

 

In the absence of a reason to say otherwise, the default is that the declaration of the chairman expresses the will of the assembly; and that's eminently sensible, if not apodictic (I can say that because it's almost the end of the year and I haven't used up my quota), because, well, that's what the declaration of the chairman is for. And it works right that way, and almost all of the time; the only problems occur when it derails.  Whence the grey areas, when we have to wonder, and reconstruct, what really happened, and then, what what really happened means.

 

(I wrote "what what" again. Great Steaming Cobnuts.)

 

[Edit 27 Dec '13.  I've jsut found this imbecilic typo, which has been bothering me for these three days:  "a proposal, which, having so support (greeted by silence), dropped like a lead balloon" should read "... which, having NO support (greeted by silence), dropped like a lead balloon..."  I'm disgusted.  My apologies.  I might not write for a week.  Feh.  Ptui Ptui (which I usually reserve for Microsoft).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...