The following has recently occurred at a small club that I belong to. The constitution of the club states: “Roberts Rules of order shall govern the procedural matters at all meetings unless the Constitution and By-Laws state otherwise”. Nothing in either of these documents addresses the issue I am about to share.
At a regular scheduled BOD meeting one member (Person A) of the board requested that another member (PersonB)resign from the board over something that did not occur on club property, at a club function, had anything to do with the club nor had anything to do with person A. The reason for the resignation request was of personal and confidential nature and should not have been public knowledge. In the event that he (Person B did not resign Person A would “drag his (Person B’s) name through the mud”. The meeting was adjourned without Person B resigning. The President of the Club (Person C), then filed a complaint with the BOD against Person A for “intimidating, humiliating and threatening” a fellow member of the board. The president felt it was his responsibility to file the complaint as the By-Laws states that “any member of the board shall enforce decorum at all times on part of the members and guests”. According to the By-Laws, Person A had 10 days to request a hearing with the BOD. It was at this hearing that things really went crazy. Person A read a very lengthy rebuttal to the complaint and asked that 2 witnesses who were not present at the first board meeting to defend him. Person A stated that these witnesses would support his reasoning to ask for the resignation. The BOD did not allow these witnesses since they were not privy to the details of the complaint. The president then asked for a copy of Person A’s rebuttal, which was refused. The Chairman of the Board then asked Person A, Person B and Person C to recuse themselves from voting on taking action on the complaint since they all were personally involved. After much discussion against this request the Chair then asked the remaining 6 members of the BOD to vote on if they would allow any of the 3 to vote on actions on the complaint. With a 3 to 3 tie the chair voted to break the tie and not allow any of the 3 to vote. This decision then went forward with a vote on the complaint with the same results of a 3 to 3 tie and this time the chair dismissed the complaint.
I am very new to parliamentary procedure and I do not believe it was followed in many aspects of the situation and therefore I have several questions. Hopefully someone can point me in the direction where each of these questions are referenced in the Rules of Order.
1. Was the process procedurally correct?
2. Does any member have the authority to demand another member resign from the board?
3. Was decorum followed when Person A asked for the resignation?
4. Was decorum followed when Person A threatened to bring Person B’s name through the mud?
5. Was the president out of line in filing the complaint?
6. Should a copy of the rebuttal have been shared with board members?
7. Is it appropriate not to allow board members to review the rebuttal?
8. Should Person B have been eliminated from voting?
9. Does the board chairman have the right to ask members of the BOD to vote on removing other member’s rights to vote?
10. Is it standard procedure that the complainant cannot vote on actions regarding a complaint he authored?
11. Does the board chairman have the right to tell the president who is a voting member of the board that he cannot vote since he is the author of the complaint?
12. Is there anything else we should be aware of when these types of situations occur in the future?
13. Since the BOD has already taken action by dismissing the complaint, can it be brought back up to be addressed using Robert’s Rules of Order more correctly?
Thanks
