jstackpo

Clearly we differ of the philosophy of Chapter 20. So be it. Would you hold to the same position if the "expulsion without a trial" exception was not in my sample organization? I.e., it was a purely Robertian society, including a removal of an officer without a trial, via "or until"?

The assumption, in the US anyway, is that a body, that has adopted no parliamentary rules, when meeting to do official business will follow the "common parliamentary law (CPL)" in doing that business. RONR is most likely the best expression available of what the CPL actually is, so go ahead and table something (following RONR, page 209) if appropriate. You would be wise to adopt RONR as your CPL rule book to avoid arguments over details in the future. Bring us your questions!

Well, the bylaws say  something certainly: "Unexpired termed vacancy of the president the nominating committee will make recommendations." Is that a direct quotation? Can't tell for sure. Do they actually say that the membership will elect someone to fill the vacancy?

You bet! And feel free to use all the salty language at your command if someone tries to tell you that you cannot debate or vote!

Is RONR included in the bylaws, or the laws, that established the board, as in... Article # Parliamentary Authority “The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt.” Of course, another term than “Society” may be substituted that more appropriately describes the particular organization. Pay particular attention to the footnote on page 580 of RONR (11th ed.) if your organization is incorporated.

If "We" means the members attending a meeting called to elect someone to fill the vacancy, then you are doing just fine. Since from what you said previously, the former V-P is now the president automatically, the vacancy you are filling is in the V-P position.

Then what happens?

Per RONR, only the members of the group that is meeting, plus anybody that the members, collectively, wish to invite to be present. It sounds, however, that your "group" is a city or municipal body of some sort; there may be requirements as to who has a (legal) right to be present, as well. Check with your city attorney.

Well now, another disagreement on my part, particularly with the assertion following "but since", and thus the conclusion about a 2/3 vote. Consider what RONR does in Chapter 20, specifically for offenses elsewhere than in a meeting. It lays out a fair due process system that an association must go through, by virtue of adopting RONR, to impose any penalty on someone who deserves such. The penalty can range from censure all the way to expulsion from office or membership. But then the book (simultaneously) allows two exceptions to following the full due process procedures: a censure can be tendered by just a majority vote any old time and a removal from office can be accomplished by adopting a motion to remove following the requirements set out on pages 574 or 653, provided the "or until" phrase is in place in the bylaws. I do not see any other exceptions to the go-thru-a-trial due process procedure for any other contemplated penalties (nor any related vote threshold requirements). Thus a proposal to suspend a member for a period of time, impose a fine, require a letter of apology, expel him from membership, or any number of imaginable penalties, MUST be preceded by the full due process (trial, &c) steps. No way around it. Granted, the book mentions a couple of opportunities to "short-cut" the trial procedure (p. 656, lines 9 to 12, and p. 658, lines 21-24) but such a shortcut doesn't allow you to jump to the penalty phase (p. 667, line 31ff.), it merely ends the procedure, presumably with some sort of informal agreement, and NO formal imposition of a penalty by the association. My sample organization, described in the initial posting, does add one more exception (expulsion by a 2/3 vote, no trial required) and actually makes the removal from office slightly more difficult than RONR's exception for removal. But not by much. At least, since these proposals would be presented as main motions, there would be opportunity for debate and, thus, a modicum of due process, but nothing like a full trial. But adding a minimally detailed exemption or a slightly tighter rule for an existing exception can hardly be a reason to argue that other possible penalties are (magically) also now exempt from the full due process requirements.

"Recommendation to who[m]? Do the the bylaws say what the recipients of the recommendation are to do about it?

And for a "quick study" pick up a copy of RONRIB: "Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link: http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html Or in your local bookstore.

Yeah... but my (current) concern is with the rules to follow leading up to the imposition of the penalty, but not with any consequences if the accused (or guilty party) refuses to accede to the proper order.

I beg to differ.... with both Josh and, to my peril(?), with Dan... But first, a clarification (that I may not have been clear about initially): I intended the discussion of bylaw provisions overriding RONR to apply only to "offenses [committed] elsewhere than in a meeting" and the procedures related to dealing with them, as noted briefly on page 649, and extensively described starting on page 654. That, after all, is the bulk of the chapter and the more complicated material. To Josh's point: Seems to me that censure and ordering (or requiring) an apology are VERY different penalties. The former is something the assembly can do by majority vote with no regard as to how the subject of the censure may feel about it; the latter requires action on the part of the subject which could have social and psychological consequences. An apology requires, in effect, a public admission of guilt (at least within the confines of the association) by the offender, not always a comfortable thing to own up to. A censure, obviously, does not require anything of the offender; the subject can simply ignore the censure and go on his or her merry way. Since a censure is of little practical consequence, RONR notes (p. 643, footnote, and elsewhere, see the index) that imposing the penalty of a censure does not require formal disciplinary procedures and hence does not require any proof of culpability, whether by a full trial or by a guilty plea. A required apology/admission is quite a different kettle of (Maryland blue) crabs and, in my view, requires the full due process steps of Chapter 20. Otherwise how can one order an apology for something completely unproven that the subject may very well deny happened. And while I am being disagreeable... Note, on page 668, that any penalty less than expulsion from membership, once the trial steps have been completed, requires only a majority vote to impose. Indeed, suspension of a member's rights can take place even before a trial actually gets under way, at the point that a formal notification is tendered to the accused party (p. 662 line 25ff).

And another reason is efficiency (although Zev implied that by writing "able to dispatch the business in good order"). Insist (particularly in a contentious situation) on strict adherence to the standard parliamentary rules and you will all get out of the meeting MUCH sooner than otherwise. And do what needs to be done in the process.

Probably not. However, check the statutes which established the (presumably public/govenrment) board. There might be some "rules" in them.

A sort of "generic" (and hence oversimplified) answer to my puzzle could be that "Procedure, not Penalties, override RONR", since RONR is a procedure book, not a (complete) penalty or sentencing guide. But that leaves hanging the questions "How much Procedure; Which Penalties?". My case study has two clear-cut penalties: removal and expulsion, but only a modicum of procedure: the requirements for a simple 2/3 vote (overriding the other vote options in the book for removal: majority with notice or MEM for removal; retaining 2/3 for expulsion). Are those procedures sufficient to override the RONR full trial requirements for other penalties? Responding, in part, to Josh, who wrote "If the society wishes to require a formal written apology, it seems to me that a majority vote is sufficient for this purpose". I agree, but the book describes the imposition of such a (lesser) penalty (including suspension) at the end of the full trial procedure, not before guilt is established by a trial. Otherwise you have Alice's problem with the Queen: "Sentence first, verdict afterwards!" << https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/carroll/lewis/alice/chapter12.html >>

When someone pulls this one, ask the "suggestor" to produce sch a rule. Chances are quite good, he/she won't be able to. "Just where is that written?" resolves a whole lot of questions.

Well, I dunno... Principle 7 seems to couple a definite penalty with a specific offense - "my" little example indicates a penalty, to be sure (expulsion or removal), but doesn't tie it to any specific offense at all. It is a free range penalty that could apply to any offense that the members might be offended by.

Here's about the simplest bare bones case I am dealing with: Organization structure Has (uppercase "M") Members who are elected from a large pool of potential members by the existing Members, and an Executive Board comprising the usual four Officers elected by the Members. Bylaws say: "All control, management and direction of the affairs and property of the Organization shall be vested in its Members. The Members shall: (1) generally govern the business of the Organization; (2) oversee the management of the Organization’s assets;" "The Executive Board may exercise all the administrative powers and authority of the Members in the management of the business of the Organization except the power to amend the bylaws or charter." There is no mention of "exclusive control", in the bylaws. Discipline related provisions from the Bylaws (the only ones): "Any Member may be expelled [from the Organization] by a two-thirds vote at an Organization meeting [of Members] at which there is a quorum" "Any Officer may be removed from office by a two-thirds (2/3) vote at a meeting of the Organization at which there is a quorum present." There is NO mention of "for cause", "with or without cause", any notice requirements for "expelled" or "removed", nor any additional procedural requirements set out in the bylaws. And finally... "Members shall serve for a term of two (2) years or until their successors are elected." Note the "or until". Officers shall be elected at the Annual meeting and shall serve for a term of two (2) years or until their successors are duly qualified, elected, and installed." Again, note the "or until" clause. Clearly, the Members have to power to toss out any of their fellow Members at will. Also, the Members can remove any Officer from office, and the Executive Board, at will. But here (finally(!), sorry to take so long) is the question: What about other "penalties" (other than Censure)? If the Organization wanted to impose a fine (authorized), or suspend a Member's rights, or even require a formal written apology from a Member for some admitted offense, would a Chapter 20 formal trial be necessary? (I know, I know, this is probably a "bylaw interpretation" question, but I'm seeking solid reasons implied by or from RONR.)

Then, clearly, you don't have a "Board". Whatever the association wants to do, the members are free to adopt a motion to do it. They, the members, are the only grouping of people who can speak (collectively) for the association. The officers might have some particular powers (and responsibilities) but those, if any, should be stated in the bylaws.

OK, thanks -- looks like that will do it.

And that is how it should be! Not a "mess" at all. No question, then: hold a special election to fill the remainder of the V-P's term. (Or wait, with fingers crossed, until the next regular election date comes around and vote someone in then.)

My main problem is with "body". What body? I suspect that "body" is used (rather than "assembly" or the like) to include a "full power and authority" board, from p. 468. But absent such a board...?

Where, if anywhere, does RONR explicitly state that if there are no vacancy-filling rules in the bylaws (and no "full power and authority" as on page 467) vacancies, other than the presidency, can only be filled by a special election by the full assembly? Page 468 and 575 both have sorta indirect statements (about giving notice to "the body") but don't specify what the "body" is as the no-filling-provisions default. It would be nice if the book had such an explicit statement as to the default body to refer neophytes to. RONR/12?

Nope. With nothing in your bylaws about filling vacancies, you need to run a special election, nominations and all, to fill the VP Vacancy. RONR p. 575, unless your board had "full" authority - page 467. As president you do NOT have any such authority unless your bylaws say so.