J. J.

There is in the 12th edition of RONR (61:2). At no point is there a hint that the duration of the suspension is limited.

We know that the bylaws of the society, the Club, provide that a member may purchase a life membership for a fee of $150.00. They will retain all the rights of membership but not have to pay the annual dues of $15.00. So it is a question if it is in order for the Club to buy life membership for a member. That is all.

Membership is implicit, where individual membership exists.

Membership is not beyond the purposes for organizations with individual membership.

It is not so much to waive the fee, but to do it in the specific case(s).

I have had several groups that have gone into disciplinary action over the last several years. I am not thrilled about it. In addition, I am being considered for life membership in a small group.

The bylaws of the society, the Club, provide that a member may purchase a life membership for a fee of $150.00. They will retain all the rights of membership but not have to pay the annual dues of $15.00. 1. There is a member, Mr. A, that is well liked, paid his dues, but cannot afford to pay the $150 for life membership. Is the motion "That the Club purchase life membership for Mr. A, in this Club," in order? 2. Ms. Z was a life member of the club, but was expelled. She reapplied and was readmitted. She has now become an exemplary member. The Club members feel bad about expelling her. Is the motion "That the Club purchase life membership for Ms Z, in this Club," in order? I cannot see any reason why either would be out of order.

And I have posted where you can find numerous example. I am sure that anyone interested can google the fraternity previously mentioned. Pretending it is not there will not make it go away.

You might consider purchasing an option on the property. Not procedural advice, but you might ask an attorney.

The words "expel," "remove," or even "kick out," do not appear in the motion. He would not be expelled as a result of adopting the motion as a penalty in a disciplinary procedure.

"That ______ membership be suspended," or "That ______ membership be suspended indefinitely."

The example of the penalty did not include "until reinstatement," but it could be stated in debate that the penalty could be reduced by the motion Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted. Though not germane to the comment, I would note that this could be one of those situation where the vote to do something (inflict a penalty) may be less than a vote to undo it. The assembly may require a 2/3 vote to inflict a long or indefinite penalty (with notice to the accused), but would only a majority with notice to rescind.

A standing rule cannot conflict with a bylaw, but a standing rule might give an officer additional duties outside of a meeting (2:23).

By the same token, I would not agree that the penalty "be suspended for five years," could be changed by ASPA to "be suspended for ten years."

I believe it would be, though the chair may note that the suspension may be subject to ASPA at a future point.

Try googling the Phi Beta Sigma disciplinary action list; I won't link to them. There are examples of unspecified suspensions and very long term suspensions. Just because it is not in your experience does not mean it does not happen. I have yet to see Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes, but I have no doubt that it exists.

It is not hypothetical. I've seen examples. I have also seen a case where the suspension was 100 years.

You did make such an argument and I do agree, then and now. My only "problem" is not with the argument, but the imprecise nature of where to draw the line in the case of a long suspension; is the a majority or a two thirds vote. Your argument that it may be based on the type of organization is compelling and logical; while I agree with it, it is still imprecise. Here, with an indefinite suspension, which could be, effectively, permanent, the argument for a 2/3 vote is compelling.

That is incorrect. 35:6 c said that an expulsion cannot be subjected to R/ASPA. This is not an expulsion.

Of course there is. They can expel someone. They can adopt a motion that is binding on the assembly, such as setting the meeting location.

Where would you get that this was session based? It is clear that a society may suspend membership rights beyond the end of a session (even in cases where the offense occurred in a meeting). It certainly not limited to a session (61.2)

I have noticed that some groups will, presumably after disciplinary action, suspend a member from the rights of membership, but do not specify the time. If the society has adopted RONR, is this in order? If so, would it require the same vote for expulsion? [The main procedural difference would be that, at some point, the suspended member could have the suspension ended by Amend Something Previously Adopted.]

FWIW, I agree with Mr. Brown and Mr. Novosielski. These are the members voting.

It would certainly be safer that way.

Actually, I wanted to know who voted "Doubtful." I suspect it was the Vicar of Bray.