discipline, RONR 11 vs. RONR 10 - good standing

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Re: a necesary tie between discipline and good standing.

 

Under RONR 10th edition,

the act of sending the targeted member notice of disciplinary action always resulted in an immmediate suspension of all rights, excepting those relating to trial [RONR 10th ed., page 637 lines 33 ff.]

 

Under RONR 11th edition,

the act of sending the targeted member notice of disciplinary action does not result in an immediately suspension of all rights, but can, if the notice says so. [RONR 11th ed. page 659, line 6, see "if desired"].

 

Q. If RONR 11 applies, and if a disciplinary notice goes out, without the optional "if desired" suspension of rights, then does page 6 FOOTNOTE apply?

 

That is,

page 6 Footnote only kicks in if there is a ("desired") "suspension of right or rights." -- Implying that

• If there is no suspension of a right, then there is no loss of "good standing".

And conversely,

• If there is a suspension of a right, then there is a loss of "good standing."

 

. . . Despite the notice of a disciplinary action?

 

Right?
 

[Josh Martin]

Re: a necesary tie between discipline and good standing.

 

Under RONR 10th edition,

the act of sending the targeted member notice of disciplinary action always resulted in an immmediate suspension of all rights, excepting those relating to trial [RONR 10th ed., page 637 lines 33 ff.]

 

Under RONR 11th edition,

the act of sending the targeted member notice of disciplinary action does not result in an immediately suspension of all rights, but can, if the notice says so. [RONR 11th ed. page 659, line 6, see "if desired"].

 

Q. If RONR 11 applies, and if a disciplinary notice goes out, without the optional "if desired" suspension of rights, then does page 6 FOOTNOTE apply?

 

That is,

page 6 Footnote only kicks in if there is a ("desired") "suspension of right or rights." -- Implying that

• If there is no suspension of a right, then there is no loss of "good standing".

And conversely,

• If there is a suspension of a right, then there is a loss of "good standing."

 

. . . Despite the notice of a disciplinary action?

 

Right?

 

"Members in good standing are those whose rights as members of the assembly are not under suspension as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 6, footnote)

 

So yes, I would say that a member whose rights are not under suspension remains "in good standing" in the sense the term is used in RONR, even if the member has been notified that charges have been preferred against him and he is to stand trial. Conversely, if the member's rights are under suspension, he is not "in good standing" in the sense the term is used in RONR.

[Richard Brown]

I concur with Josh's position.

 

P.S.  Where ya been, Kim??  We missed you!

 

Edited to add:  I think the change in the 11th edition  making suspension of rights optional was a very good move.  I always found it very distasteful and almost un-American that a member who was merely accused of something lost his rights of membership until a final  disposition.  I felt that made it too easy for a couple of members to temporarily sideline a member who they disagreed with philosophically by simply making an accusation of wrongdoing or unfitness against him.  It offended my sense of justice, fair play, presumption of innocence, etc.

[Josh Martin]

Edited to add: I think the change in the 11th edition making suspension of rights optional was a very good move. I always found it very distasteful and almost un-American that a member who was merely accused of something lost his rights of membership until a final disposition. I felt that made it too easy for a couple of members to temporarily sideline a member who they disagreed with philosophically by simply making an accusation of wrongdoing or unfitness against him. It offended my sense of justice, fair play, presumption of innocence, etc.

Well, I would note that if a member has reached the point where charges are preferred against him, this means that the society has voted to establish an investigating committee, the investigating committee has made its recommendation, and the society has voted to prefer charges. So while I can still see your point, it seems to be overstated a bit.