Guest Richard Powell Posted January 9, 2018 at 05:40 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 at 05:40 PM My organization will soon try one of our members for violating her loyalty oath. The Discipline Committee has met and recommended she be suspended for a year. Robert's Rules suggests that at the trial, the committee will make its reports with recommended sanctions, the accused member will be able to respond, and finally, the committee will be allowed to reply. There is no provision for the individual member of our organization who brought the accusation forward to speak at the general membership meeting. Our bylaws state that "Robert's Rules shall govern all questions of parliamentary procedure not specifically provided for within these bylaws." Would it be possible to suspend the rules (in this case RONR, I believe) with a 2/3 vote to allow the acusing member to state her case? Thank you, Richard Powell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted January 9, 2018 at 06:44 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 at 06:44 PM The accusing member should be presented as a witness by the trial managers. If she wishes to make an argument, she should be appointed as a manager herself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 10, 2018 at 01:29 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2018 at 01:29 AM (edited) 7 hours ago, Guest Richard Powell said: Robert's Rules suggests that at the trial, the committee will make its reports with recommended sanctions, the accused member will be able to respond, and finally, the committee will be allowed to reply. This is not really a complete summary of the procedures at the trial. I suggest rereading RONR, 11th ed., pg. 665. Among other things, you are missing the fact that the managers (which appears to be the disciplinary committee) and the defense (it would appear the accused is defending himself) may call witnesses, which would seem to take care of this issue. 7 hours ago, Guest Richard Powell said: Our bylaws state that "Robert's Rules shall govern all questions of parliamentary procedure not specifically provided for within these bylaws." Would it be possible to suspend the rules (in this case RONR, I believe) with a 2/3 vote to allow the acusing member to state her case? The simplest solution would be for the managers to call the accusing member as a witness. If for some reason the managers are unwilling to do so, yes, the assembly could suspend the rules to permit the accusing member to speak. 6 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said: If she wishes to make an argument, she should be appointed as a manager herself. I disagree. I do not think it would be appropriate for the accusing member to serve as a manager. ”The "managers" at the trial—referred to in the fourth resolution of the complete set shown above—have the task of presenting the evidence against the accused, and must be members of the society. Their duty, however, is not to act as prosecutors—in the sense of making every effort to secure conviction—but rather to strive that the trial will get at the truth and that, in the light of all facts brought out, the outcome will be just.” (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 662-663) I think there would be at least the perception, if not the reality, that the accusing member would be “making every effort to secure conviction.” Edited January 10, 2018 at 01:30 AM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted January 10, 2018 at 01:34 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2018 at 01:34 AM Perhaps; that is for the assembly to decide. But it is the only way she could "make her case" outside of answering questions as a witness. I think it would be even less proper to suspend the rules to permit her to make an accusatory speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 10, 2018 at 02:32 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2018 at 02:32 AM 50 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said: Perhaps; that is for the assembly to decide. But it is the only way she could "make her case" outside of answering questions as a witness. I think it would be even less proper to suspend the rules to permit her to make an accusatory speech. I disagree with suspending the rules being less proper. The assembly appears to be of the opinion that the accuser, and not just the accused, should have a right to speak. Suspending the rules to permit it avails her of the opportunity to “make her case.” It is clear in this case that the accuser’s views are her own and not (necessarily) the views of the society. Additionally, such a speech will presumably be no more accusatory than what she would say if called as a witness. I find this preferable to having the accuser represent the society in the trial as a manager. I certainly agree, however, that these issues are ultimately up to the society to decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts