CuriousOne

These could be provided if they would be helpful. It’s not RONR that governs this, it’s our By-Laws. The By-Laws state that any Board member who is involved in any way with the subject matter leading to the charges that were brought cannot sit on the Trial Board. Both members agreed they cannot sit. Because it’s not convenient to the party against whom the charges were brought to have the VP and Assistant Chief to sit on the TB. Currently on the TB is the party’s life long best friend, the party’s son, another friend of the party, and an impartial member. The VP and Assistant Chief have a contentious history with the party and the party does not want them to sit on the TB. This leads to another question. Can a son sit on a TB for his father? It would seem that would be an additional issue. Also, there is no appeal board (specifically stated in the By-Laws).

Charges were filed against a member. A Trial Board needs to be held. Chief & President are conflicted off Trial Board. By-Laws state “Board of Directors sit as the Trial Board.” Chief & President are members of the Board and would sit on TB, absent this COI. By-Laws also say VP assumes role & responsibilities of President when President is absent and Assistant Chief assumes role & responsibilities of Chief when Chief is absent. Assistant Chief and VP are not members of BOD under By-Laws but have sat and voted on BOD in the absence of Chief and President, respectively, in the past. VP has also been in Executive Sessions of BOD. BOD Chair has also allowed the Treasurer, who also is not a member of the BOD, to sit in on Executive Sessions. A BOD member says he has authority to interpret the By-Laws due to his lengthy years of service and instructed the President that the VP and Assistant Chief cannot sit on the TB in place of the President and Chief. Consequently, the President relied solely on the By-Law stating that the BOD constitutes the TB and the VP and Assistant Chief could not sit in their stead because they are not members of the Board. Another member of the Board says this is an illegal Trial Board under the By-Laws and Robert’s Rules. Can anyone offer any insight here? Also, the By-Laws say 5 members of the BOD constitutes a Quorum for meetings. The Trial Board By-Laws say a “majority” is needed for the Trial Board to convene, but does not define a quorum. Since 5 members are necessary for a quorum for a BOD meeting, wouldn’t 5 members be necessary for a TB? (3 members are conflicted off - only 4 members are able to sit due to the above.)