On removal from office, can a member vote at his own trial?

[Guest Larry]

This may sound like a repeat of my earlier question, but I would like a definitive answer from parliamentarians.

An autonomous organization (no hierarchy to appeal to) held a meeting to remove a member from office. The moderator asserted according to RONR, pp. 639-640 (e) and (f) that the accused leaves the room before debate begins and does not return until after the vote is taken. The member asserted under RONR p. 394 that as a member, he has a right to vote even on himself (should abstain but cannot be compelled to). The accused left the room during debate, but returned to vote after debate. His ballot was collected, and proved to be the deciding vote.

The *other* "rules" site had an item: "A sense of delicacy usually prevents a member from exercising this right of voting in matters affecting himself except where his vote might affect the result. After charges are preferred against a member, and the assembly has ordered him to appear for trial, he is theoretically under arrest, and is deprived of all rights of membership and therefore cannot vote until his case is disposed of."

I have not found that last sentence in RONR.

So, Yes or No: for removal from office (not membership) for cause, does the accused have the right to vote on whether he is removed from office?

[hmtcastle]

So, Yes or No: for removal from office (not membership) for cause, does the accused have the right to vote on whether he is removed from office?

The disciplinary procedure described in Chapter XX create the unique instance when a member's right to vote is suspended.

If, on the other hand, an officer is being removed from office under some other procedure (e.g. the rescision of an election), his right to vote is not suspended (even though he might be expected not to exercise that right).

[Guest Larry]

Additional question: if the decision of the parliamentarians is that the accused's vote does not count, does it become retroactive to the meeting? That is, can it be ruled that the required majority was attained and the member is removed from office?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

This may sound like a repeat of my earlier question, but I would like a definitive answer from parliamentarians.

... organization ... held a meeting to remove a member from office.

The moderator asserted according to RONR, pp. 639-640 (e) and (f) that the accused leaves the room before debate begins and does not return until after the vote is taken.

The member asserted under RONR p. 394 that as a member, he has a right to vote even on himself (should abstain but cannot be compelled to).

The accused left the room during debate, but returned to vote after debate.

His ballot was collected, and proved to be the deciding vote.

So, Yes or No:

for removal from office (not membership) for cause, does the accused have the right to vote on whether he is removed from office?

The answer is, "It depends HOW you are doing it." - "Don't compare apples to oranges."

There is a vast difference between:

(a.) removing an officer from office via a trial, after the notification of same, which only occurs after ADOPTION of a motion that a trial be held;

(b.) removing an officer from office via a motion, namely, to RESCIND the election, and then initiate the choosing of a successor.

In #b, where the method of removal is via the motion "To rescind the election of [officer]," the officer CAN remain in the room and CAN vote, of course, since nothing has been adopted yet.

In #a, the officer is suspended. The officer has no rights, except those rights relating to trial.

As such, the suspended officer CANNOT remain in the room during deliberations, and CANNOT remain in the room to vote, since he has no right to vote.

Q. What process are you invoking?

The trial process of Chapter XX Section 61 of RONR?

Or your own customized process via your bylaws?

[David A Foulkes]

Additional question: if the decision of the parliamentarians is that the accused's vote does not count, does it become retroactive to the meeting? That is, can it be ruled that the required majority was attained and the member is removed from office?

Maybe it's just me, but does the parliamentarian get to decide this?

[Chris Harrison]

Maybe it's just me, but does the parliamentarian get to decide this?

Not if only RONR applies. I would bet the parliamentarian is exceeding his authority to "decide" anything. He can advise the Chair and the Chair can decide that though (subject to Appeal).

[hmtcastle]

I would bet the parliamentarian is exceeding his authority to "decide" anything.

Well, you know how some parliamentarians can be, what with those letters after their name and whatnot.

[Guest Larry]

We don't have a parliamentarian per se. We have a dispute concerning the use of RONR. I came to the forum for clarification and advice from people who would have a better understanding of the rules and how to interpret and apply them. Your advice is being asked on the issues of "should his vote be allowed?" and "if the advice of the outside parliamentarians is that his vote should not count, can the vote be retroactively changed?"

H. Wm. Mountcastle has stated "The disciplinary procedure described in Chapter XX create the unique instance when a member's right to vote is suspended."

That is one definitive opinion.

Kim Goldsworthy asked:

The answer is, "It depends HOW you are doing it."

(a.) removing an officer from office via a trial, after the notification of same, which only occurs after ADOPTION of a motion that a trial be held;

(b.) removing an officer from office via a motion, namely, to RESCIND the election, and then initiate the choosing of a successor.

...

Q. What process are you invoking?

The trial process of Chapter XX Section 61 of RONR?

Or your own customized process via your bylaws?

This is not rescission of an election. This is removal for disciplinary cause (including dishonorable behavior in office and abuse of office). The only statement in our governing documents is that it must done at a meeting called for that purpose, with proper advance notice of the meeting and its purpose, and that a specific majority vote be obtained. This was at such a meeting. The vote of the accused is the difference between having the requisite majority and not having it. The procedures from RONR Chapter XX pp 639-640 were followed. Manager read the reason, respondent was allowed to speak, witnesses, closing statements, debate, vote.

Chris H. wrote: I would bet the parliamentarian is exceeding his authority to "decide" anything. He can advise the Chair and the Chair can decide that though (subject to Appeal).

Are you saying that moderator has the authority to determine whether the accused can vote, a decision which can be appealed to the assembly? If so, what majority sustains or overrides the decision of the moderator?

[Josh Martin]

Additional question: if the decision of the parliamentarians is that the accused's vote does not count, does it become retroactive to the meeting? That is, can it be ruled that the required majority was attained and the member is removed from office?

It's not the Parliamentarian's decision. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 449, lines 7-10) The chair would make the ruling, and he may (or may not) follow the Parliamentarian's advice. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 450, lines 31-35) The chair's ruling is subject to appeal. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 247, lines 21-25) A majority vote is needed to overturn the chair's ruling. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 250, lines 9-13)

As for the "after the meeting" issue, if a ruling is made that the member in question was ineligible to vote at the time, then the case would be the same as if a non-member had voted. If it can be proven that his vote could have affected the result (that is, if one vote would have made a difference) then the vote is null and void and the process must be done again. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 402, lines 30-34) The result is not automatically adjusted to correct for the member's vote.

This is not rescission of an election. This is removal for disciplinary cause (including dishonorable behavior in office and abuse of office).

Recission of an election is still a disciplinary act. It's just a different process. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 642, line 34 - pg. 633, line 5; FAQ #20)

The only statement in our governing documents is that it must done at a meeting called for that purpose, with proper advance notice of the meeting and its purpose, and that a specific majority vote be obtained.

In my opinion, such a statement constitutes the "other wording explicitly indicating that the officer may be removed before the term expires" mentioned in FAQ #20 and allows recission of the election.

Are you saying that moderator has the authority to determine whether the accused can vote, a decision which can be appealed to the assembly?

Yes. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 434, lines 23-26; pg. 247, lines 21-25)

If so, what majority sustains or overrides the decision of the moderator?

A "plain vanilla" majority - more than half of those present and voting. A tie vote sustains the moderator's decision. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 250, lines 9-13)

[Guest Larry]

What about page 637, lines 32-35, "In any event, from the time the accused has thus been notified, all of his rights as a member of the society (except as relate to the trial) are suspended pending disposition of the case"?

[hmtcastle]

Recission of an election is still a disciplinary act. It's just a different process. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 642, line 34 - pg. 633, line 5; FAQ #20)

Notwithstanding the fact that it appears in Chapter XX, I would think an election could be rescinded for reasons other than disciplinary.

[Dan Honemann]

Notwithstanding the fact that it appears in Chapter XX, I would think an election could be rescinded for reasons other than disciplinary.

Look at the top of page 298.

[hmtcastle]

Look at the top of page 298.

I just did. I think it tells me that the rescission of an election can't be rescinded.

I don't think it tells me that the rescission of an election is necessarily disciplinary (that is, a punishment for wrongdoing).

[Dan Honemann]

I just did. I think it tells me that the rescission of an election can't be rescinded.

No, it tells you that an election to office can't be rescinded.

[Josh Martin]

What about page 637, lines 32-35, "In any event, from the time the accused has thus been notified, all of his rights as a member of the society (except as relate to the trial) are suspended pending disposition of the case"?

That citation applies only if the formal disciplinary procedures of Ch. XX are used. It does not apply to rescinding an election.

Now, I suppose one could argue that even if the Bylaws allow the rescission of an election, the assembly could still choose to use the formal disciplinary procedures of Ch. XX instead, in which case that citation would apply.

[Dan Honemann]

That citation applies only if the formal disciplinary procedures of Ch. XX are used. It does not apply to rescinding an election.

Now, I suppose one could argue that even if the Bylaws allow the rescission of an election, the assembly could still choose to use the formal disciplinary procedures of Ch. XX instead, in which case that citation would apply.

And when that citation does apply, it certainly does not mean that the accused gets to vote on the question of his guilt or innocence.

[Guest Larry]

Daniel H. Honemann: June 8, 9:30 AM, references page 298 lines 1-8, which in turn reference pages 642-643, regarding removal from office.

The person has served in office for two years.

Pages 642-643 contain interesting wording:

"if the bylaws provide that officers shall serve 'for __ years

or

until their successors are elected,' the election of the officer in question CAN be rescinded..."

"If, however, the bylaws provide that officers shall serve

only

a fixed term, such as 'for two years' ... or if the provide that officers shall server 'for __ years

and

until their successors are elected,' an officer can be deposed from office ONLY by following the procedures dealing with offenses by members outside a meeting..."

(emphasis on "CAN" and "ONLY" is mine).

As I read it,

a) in the second case, an officer can be removed ONLY by trial, in which case the offending officer can NOT vote;

in the first case, an officer CAN be removed by simple rescission, in which case the offender CAN vote, but CAN instead be removed by trial, in which case the offending officer can NOT vote. The consequence to the society is that going the simple "rescission" route allows the offender to vote.

Even though the rules ALLOW rescission, we have chosen to go the trial route, with charges read, rather than simple rescission. I submit therefore that the offending officer can NOT vote.

[Dan Honemann]

You said yesterday that "The procedures from RONR Chapter XX pp 639-640 were followed."

Obviously, they weren't. Had they been followed, the accused would not have been in the room at the time the vote was taken.

[Guest Larry]

Daniel H. Honemann: Thank you for responding. Please read my original post. The accused left the room during the debate, but returned for the vote, asserting his right as a member to vote. That is where this whole mess started. I could not produce chapter-and-verse from RONR saying that he could not vote. That is why I am seeking advice and interpretations from this forum.

[Dan Honemann]

Daniel H. Honemann: Thank you for responding. Please read my original post. The accused left the room during the debate, but returned for the vote, asserting his right as a member to vote. That is where this whole mess started. I could not produce chapter-and-verse from RONR saying that he could not vote. That is why I am seeking advice and interpretations from this forum.

"When the closing arguments have been completed, the accused must leave the room. ... After voting is completed, the accused is called back into the hall and advised of the result." (RONR, 10th ed., p. 639-640).

You obviously did not follow this procedure.

[hmtcastle]

No, it tells you that an election to office can't be rescinded.

And yet pp.642-643 says that an election can be rescinded.

I have the uncomfortable feeling that I'm missing something very fundamental (and obvious?).

[Chris Harrison]

And yet pp.642-643 says that an election can be rescinded.

I have the uncomfortable feeling that I'm missing something very fundamental (and obvious?).

Page 298 makes an exception regarding removal from office. I suspect this is an example of Principle of Interpretation #3 on p. 571 (although both statements are pretty specific).

[Josh Martin]

I suspect this is an example of Principle of Interpretation #3 on p. 571 (although both statements are pretty specific).

RONR, 10th ed., pg. 19, line 9 - pg. 20, line 2 also refers to the "specific vs. general" rule for RONR itself. This is a more detailed case as there's three levels going on here.

1.) The general rule is that most motions can be rescinded. This includes non-officer elections (such as an election to a committee).

2.) The specific rule is that elections to office cannot be rescinded. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 298, lines 1-8)

3.) The more specific rule is that elections to office can be rescinded as a disciplinary action if the Bylaws contain certain language. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 642, line 34 - pg. 643, line 5)

As the pg. 19-20 citation says, "Whenever a particular statement appears to conflict with a more general statement elsewhere in the book, therefore, the particular statement governs in the matter to which it states that it applies." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 19, line 13 - pg. 20, line 1) Thus, an election to office can be rescinded, but only within the narrow conditions to which the citation on pgs. 642-643 applies. The book helpfully cross-references these pages in the pg. 298 citation.

[hmtcastle]

Thus, an election to office can be rescinded, but only within the narrow conditions to which the citation on pgs. 642-643 applies.

Okay.

But couldn't an election be rescinded for other than disciplinary reasons?

And couldn't the officer in question vote on the rescission?

[Josh Martin]

But couldn't an election be rescinded for other than disciplinary reasons?

No. The rule in RONR, 10th ed., pg. 642, line 34 - pg. 643, line 5 is an exception to the general rule that elections to office cannot be rescinded that applies only if certain language is included in the Bylaws and the rescission is for disciplinary reasons. When there is no disciplinary action, this rule does not apply, and therefore the rule in RONR, 10th ed., pg. 298, lines 1-8 is controlling.

And couldn't the officer in question vote on the rescission?

Yes, the officer in question could vote on the rescission (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 255, lines 22-28), but shouldn't (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 394, lines 15-25).