Should RONR be consider and Authority in matters of discipline when the organization’s bylaws have their own procedures

[DanielEHayes]

Must an organization follow the disciplinary hearing procedures laid out in RONR, specifically regarding holding a vote to suspend in a meeting or could it vote on the suspension by email?

This organization:

-has adopted in its bylaws RONR’s current edition as its parliamentary authority

-has a standing Judicial Committee 

-has allowed for email voting in its bylaws 

-uses email voting somewhat regularly

- has a provision for discipline of officers that states;

“ The Committee may, for cause, suspend any officer by a vote of 2/3 of the entire Committee. The suspended officer may challenge the suspension by an appeal in writing to the Judicial Committee within seven days of receipt of notice of suspension. Failure to appeal within seven days shall confirm the suspension and bar any later challenge or appeal. The Judicial Committee shall set a date for hearing the appeal between 20 and 40 days of receipt of the appeal and shall notify all interested persons, which persons shall have the right to appear and present evidence and argument. At the hearing the burden of persuasion shall rest upon the appellant. The Judicial Committee shall either affirm the Committee's suspension of the officer or order the officer's reinstatement within 30 days of the hearing. Failure of the Judicial Committee to rule within 30 days shall constitute an affirmation of the Committee's suspension of the officer. At such time as the suspension is final, the office in question shall be deemed vacant.”

[DanielEHayes]

I think that with regards to it’s matter of discipline for this organization that this provision says that Roberts is not authoritative, though I would argue it still could be persuasive.

 

See RONR(11th ed.),pp.589-590,ll.33-5.

  “If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of
  the same class are thereby prohibited.  There is a presumption that
  nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it.
  There can be no valid reason for authorizing certain things to be done
  that can clearly be done without the authorization of the bylaws,
  unless the intent is to specify the things of the same class that may
  be done, all others being prohibited.”

Edited January 18, 2018 at 02:11 PM by DanielEHayes
Grammar

[Joshua Katz]

Membership rights may only be lost via a disciplinary process, unless the organization provides another way in its bylaws.  Here, our bylaws provide another way - the adoption of a motion by a 2/3 vote of the entire membership of the board.

The term provision does not include any mention of successors, so we can't rely on that, but I think this provision clearly provides an alternative to the chapter XX process.

 

 

[Richard Brown]

50 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Membership rights may only be lost via a disciplinary process, unless the organization provides another way in its bylaws.  Here, our bylaws provide another way - the adoption of a motion by a 2/3 vote of the entire membership of the board.

1

I agree. I think the bylaw provision supersedes the RONR provisions on removal from office.

53 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

 . . .The term provision does not include any mention of successors, so we can't rely on that, but I think this provision clearly provides an alternative to the chapter XX process.

 

 

I'm  not quite sure what you mean by the "term provision" statement, but I agree that the bylaw provision provides an alternative to the process in Chapter XX of RONR and thus supersedes RONR in that regard.

[Joshua Katz]

Just now, Richard Brown said:

I'm  not quite sure what you mean by the "term provision" statement, but I agree that the bylaw provision provides an alternative to the process in Chapter XX of RONR and thus supersedes RONR in that regard.

The length of office does not use "...until their successors...."

[Josh Martin]

5 hours ago, DanielEHayes said:

Must an organization follow the disciplinary hearing procedures laid out in RONR, specifically regarding holding a vote to suspend in a meeting or could it vote on the suspension by email?

This organization:

-has adopted in its bylaws RONR’s current edition as its parliamentary authority

-has a standing Judicial Committee 

-has allowed for email voting in its bylaws 

-uses email voting somewhat regularly

- has a provision for discipline of officers that states;

“ The Committee may, for cause, suspend any officer by a vote of 2/3 of the entire Committee. The suspended officer may challenge the suspension by an appeal in writing to the Judicial Committee within seven days of receipt of notice of suspension. Failure to appeal within seven days shall confirm the suspension and bar any later challenge or appeal. The Judicial Committee shall set a date for hearing the appeal between 20 and 40 days of receipt of the appeal and shall notify all interested persons, which persons shall have the right to appear and present evidence and argument. At the hearing the burden of persuasion shall rest upon the appellant. The Judicial Committee shall either affirm the Committee's suspension of the officer or order the officer's reinstatement within 30 days of the hearing. Failure of the Judicial Committee to rule within 30 days shall constitute an affirmation of the Committee's suspension of the officer. At such time as the suspension is final, the office in question shall be deemed vacant.”

It seems to me that if the bylaws authorize voting by e-mail, the votes described in this procedure could be taken by e-mail, although I think that the hearing itself (if the accused avails himself of this option) would need to be held at a meeting.

The bylaws supersede RONR in all areas where they conflict, but RONR may still be a useful resource. RONR describes the procedures for a trial in great detail, which could supplement the procedures in the bylaws.

Edited January 18, 2018 at 08:03 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

50 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

It seems to me that if the bylaws authorize voting by e-mail, the votes described in this procedure could be taken by e-mail, although I think that the hearing itself (if the accused avails himself of this option) would need to be held at a meeting.

 

I don't think the email ballot is the main issue here.  I rather suspect the organization also permits videoconference meetings, and will hold one on this topic.  The question would be whether that meeting must follow procedure, and must be held in ES.  My answer is no, although I do agree that the procedures may give helpful advice.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I don't think the email ballot is the main issue here.  I rather suspect the organization also permits videoconference meetings, and will hold one on this topic.  The question would be whether that meeting must follow procedure, and must be held in ES.  My answer is no, although I do agree that the procedures may give helpful advice.

I think a videoconference would be fine, if authorized by the bylaws. This would still meet the bylaws requirement that members are permitted “to appear and present evidence and argument” at an appeal hearing held on a particular date.

I concur that the organization is not required to use the trial procedures in RONR for the appeal hearing. If it wishes, the organization may develop its own procedures instead, so long as those procedures are consistent with the organization’s bylaws. It seems to me that the disciplinary procedures discussed here are extensive enough that they are likely intended to replace, rather than merely modify, the trial procedure in RONR.

With that said, coming up with rules for a trial is a lot of work, so using RONR’s rules as a baseline, modified as necessary to comply with the bylaws and to meet the society’s needs, would seem prudent.

Edited January 18, 2018 at 11:27 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

4 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I think a videoconference would be fine, if authorized by the bylaws. This would still meet the bylaws requirement that members are permitted “to appear and present evidence and argument” at an appeal hearing held on a particular date.

I concur that the organization is not required to use the trial procedures in RONR for the appeal hearing. If it wishes, the organization may develop its own procedures instead, so long as those procedures are consistent with the organization’s bylaws. It seems to me that the disciplinary procedures discussed here are extensive enough that they are likely intended to replace, rather than merely modify, the trial procedure in RONR.

 

Given the bylaw language, my opinion is that a motion, debate, and vote is sufficient, if it reaches the threshold.  Do you disagree?  Such debate would certainly allow argument and evidence.  More importantly, though, it looks to me like the bylaws allow it as a motion, albeit with a special threshold, not a disciplinary process.

The bylaws also allow for an appeal process for suspension of officers, and that appeal is conducted by a separate body, with its own procedures (the bylaws permit it to adopt procedures each term, and send them to the secretary to be provided to the membership).  But here we're talking about the initial process.

[Josh Martin]

20 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Given the bylaw language, my opinion is that a motion, debate, and vote is sufficient, if it reaches the threshold.  Do you disagree?  Such debate would certainly allow argument and evidence.  More importantly, though, it looks to me like the bylaws allow it as a motion, albeit with a special threshold, not a disciplinary process.

The bylaws also allow for an appeal process for suspension of officers, and that appeal is conducted by a separate body, with its own procedures (the bylaws permit it to adopt procedures each term, and send them to the secretary to be provided to the membership).  But here we're talking about the initial process.

I am in complete agreement that a motion, debate, and vote are sufficient for the initial process. All that the bylaws appear to require for that is “a 2/3 vote of the entire Committee.” As you say, the bylaws allow it as a motion, not a disciplinary process.

Edited January 20, 2018 at 12:40 AM by Josh Martin