OFFICERS RIGHTS TO VOTE in DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION

[Guest Rene Leslie]

I hope this is not complex.  We have a very small club at this time of 5 board members and 1 member.  One of the board member/Officer is filing charges against another board member/Officer for insisting that the bylaws be followed.   Our bylaws have no provision of removal other than by sustained charges.  The bylaws direct that this can only be done by filing charges in writing to each board member.  Then the Secretary or President should call a board meeting to discuss the charges and decide if they have merit.  The board essentially is the investigating committee.  If charges are sustained as viable then a trial date will be set with the same board and a written notice is to be sent to the accused advising them of the nature of the charges and that they have been entertained by the board and a date for a trial has been set.  The accused has the right to defend themselves at that trial where the board will decide on a penalty or to dismiss charges.   

Here is the question:  The charges are preferred against one of the board/Officers so does that board member have the right to vote on that charge against them at the initial investigating committee meeting before charges are sustained and a trial is ordered?    Does the other board member/Officer who is preferring charges have the right to vote on their own charges?  

Thanks for any direction on this matter.  

[Joshua Katz]

This is a matter of interpreting your bylaws, so we can only be of limited help.  However, p. 662 provides "A resolution preferring charges may (although it need not) be accompanied by one suspending all or some specified portion of the accused's authority, rights, and duties as an officer or rights as a member (except those rights that relate to the trial) pending disposition of the case, effective from the time official notification of the resolution is delivered to the accused's address."  This statement arises when discussing step 3 - formal notification of the accused, which is after confidential investigation by a committee, report of the committee, and preferral of charges if warranted.  It seems to me, then, that this member should not have any rights suspended until the board decides charges should be preferred - hence, that they would have the right to vote on such a question.  Stay tuned for other answers, though.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

I don't see anything in the quoted bylaws or RONR that suggests anyone loses the right to vote in this scenario. As Mr. Katz observes, the suspension of rights may occur with formal notification, which, of course, can't happen until after the vote.

[Guest Rene Leslie]

Thank you for your input on this.  I have scoured everything I can to find the direction.  I have always thought that a member's rights to vote and participate were in tact until filed accusations/charges were sustained to be further addressed in a disciplinary hearing/trial. (Our bylaws state hearing) And written registered notice(our bylaws) was sent to the accused informing them of the charges and trial date.  But this is differerent where the board members are at odds.   

[Josh Martin]

On 3/17/2018 at 4:42 PM, Guest Rene Leslie said:

Here is the question:  The charges are preferred against one of the board/Officers so does that board member have the right to vote on that charge against them at the initial investigating committee meeting before charges are sustained and a trial is ordered?    Does the other board member/Officer who is preferring charges have the right to vote on their own charges?  

As a matter of terminology, it should be noted that, at this time, at the initial investigating committee meeting, no charges are preferred against the member. No one member may prefer charges under RONR, and it appears that no one member may do so under your bylaws either - the board makes that decision. The act of preferring charges is what necessitates the need for a trial.

I concur with the previous responses that the member who is the subject of the allegations retains the right to vote. I think a very reasonable argument may be made that he should not vote, as he has a personal interest not in common with other members, however, he cannot be compelled to abstain.

The member who has brought this matter to the board’s attention certainly has the right to vote.