Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'discipline'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • RONR Message Board – Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised
    • General Discussion
    • Advanced Discussion
    • The Robert’s Rules Website
  • About the Message Board
    • Questions or Comments about the Message Board


There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Found 19 results

  1. Suppose that according to the procedures on and before page 647, following the offender being named, a member moves "That [name of the offender] be required to leave the meeting hall during the remainder of the meeting." What would the threshold for this motion be? Alternatively, suppose that a member moves "That the rights of membership of [name of the offender] be suspended for a period of __ days." What would the threshold for this motion be?
  2. I might be a bit confused so looking for clarification. Board Minutes of an organization was published to its membership today. This is a national club so the BOD meets monthly via conference call and members do not attend the meetings. There was a special meeting held where the BOD received notification that a member of the current board wanted to prefer charges against another current board member. The fee required was paid and the board member was notified of the charges against them. It was also stated that a motion was made to move ahead with charges against two other members. I don't see where a specific member paid the fee to prefer charges so not sure this set of charges is legitimate. I'm assuming the board itself is preferring charges against these two additional members but there were not many details. The fact that these three members having charges preferred against them are members who were recently elected by the membership to serve on the next BOD (during a contentious election), is interesting to me. It seems that there might be some sour grapes here but, I digress. Each member who has had charges preferred against them has been notified and a hearing date has been set. Should this "special meeting" actually have been held in Executive Session, and if yes, how does not being held in Executive Session affect this process going forward?
  3. Page 647 says that after the chair has given proper warning, it can be moved to remove the offending member from the meeting hall. Would this motion need a majority or two-thirds to pass?
  4. Given the current political climate, the question of procedures for handling accusations of sexual harassment within our group has come up. (It should be noted that the discussion is hypothetical at this point, as nobody has been accused.) As I understand our bylaws, they only contain explicit discipline requirements for violations of the loyalty oath and for excessive absences from meetings. If (again, hypothetically speaking) we had a member who had sexually harassed someone else, can we specify that as a charge for a trial, or is the lack of a cover-all "members shall not do stuff that makes us look bad" clause in the bylaws going to cause problems?
  5. [excerpt, RONR, page 92] Q. Does the current authorship team stand by letter #b? Can an assembly call a special meeting despite no bylaws' authorization for special meetings, when the subject of the special meeting would be a disciplinary action?
  6. Guest

    abstaining from a vote

    On page 407 in the 11th edition under abstaining from voting, line 23, 24, the phrase "direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members" (italics mine), what is the intent of the "not common" phrase? This is the scenario: a number of board members were present at an event at the club where poor decision making caused a possible unsafe moment. No rules were broken, no injuries or property damage occurred but this group is not liked Even though the infraction seems minor, the BOD is entertaining suspension and expulsion as discipline. It appears power shift is what is truly on their mind. They are not allowing any of them to participate in discussion or voting, citing conflict of interest. My feeling is that because the issue is common to other members, the entire BOD should be discussing the possible discipline. Can you offer guidance?
  7. We have a situation in our Association which has never come up before and, frankly, we're overwhelmed. A statement was made in an open meeting which condemned members of a local association. Those Chapter members were obviously upset and one filed a formal complaint citing the bylaws of our Association and the relief requested was that the offender NOT take office next year and also that a public apology be issued. However, according to the State bylaws, the local chapter bylaws AND the national association bylaws, the remedies are "discipline, expulsion, suspension, and/or termination of membership." This is all the National, state and local bylaws say as far as "discipline" for infractions, but no guidelines or procedures as to the definition of "discipline" or what it should entail, including specifically calling for an apology in an open meeting. Is a derogatory remark in an open meeting grounds for negating installation of an officer? Since there is no written procedure to follow as to trial or handling by a selected committee, how should this properly be handled? Also, the original complainant (and past State President), forwarded a copy of her complaint not only to the current State President, but also to the Local Chapter President who then forwarded it to the person the charges were aimed at directly. Does this violate the confidentiality of the charges, as cited in Robert's Rules that it should remain confidential, and, if so, how should this infraction be handled? We've been looking at Chapter XX, and it seems the more we read, the more confused we're becoming. It's all just so mind-boggling and we fear this situation will tear our association in two. Guidance suggestions?
  8. Re: a necesary tie between discipline and good standing. Under RONR 10th edition, the act of sending the targeted member notice of disciplinary action always resulted in an immmediate suspension of all rights, excepting those relating to trial [RONR 10th ed., page 637 lines 33 ff.] Under RONR 11th edition, the act of sending the targeted member notice of disciplinary action does not result in an immediately suspension of all rights, but can, if the notice says so. [RONR 11th ed. page 659, line 6, see "if desired"]. Q. If RONR 11 applies, and if a disciplinary notice goes out, without the optional "if desired" suspension of rights, then does page 6 FOOTNOTE apply? That is, page 6 Footnote only kicks in if there is a ("desired") "suspension of right or rights." -- Implying that • If there is no suspension of a right, then there is no loss of "good standing". And conversely, • If there is a suspension of a right, then there is a loss of "good standing." . . . Despite the notice of a disciplinary action? Right?
  9. The question deals with a requirement for the investigating committee to "meet with the accused for a frank discussion and to hear his side of the story (p. 658, ll. 20-21)." The assembly is considering disciplinary action against a member for an offense outside of the meeting. It appoints a committee to investigate. That committee conducts an investigation, but it does not even contact the accused. The accused, didn't attend the meeting, and has no idea she is being charged. The committee reports charges against the accused. 1. At this point a point of order is raised that the accused was never contacted; should the point of order be well taken? 2. The charges are adopted, an adjourned meeting properly scheduled, and notice is sent to the accused (she was absent and couldn't tell anyone that she was never contacted). She receives timely notice. At the adjourned meeting, may a point of order be raised that she had never contacted prior to the investigating committee recommending charges?
  10. Executive Committee has 9 members including President. 3 of those members are trying to take over the organization and remove the Executive Director. Bylaws Committee had a cross section of members with different views who met for many months and was able to come up with compromises that all but 3 members agreed to. Bylaws Committee has submitted extensively revised bylaws. Executive Committee voted to send new bylaws to the Board for a vote. President broke the tie vote to send bylaws to Board. These 3 members plus 2 additional members from bylaws committee who voted against passing the bylaws are trying to stop the bylaws from being voted on by the Board. These members did not attend any bylaws committee meetings until the last couple of meetings and then tried to undo all the work that had been done. The current constitution and RONR have been followed to bring a constitutional revision to the Board for a vote. We employed a PRP to help with the drafting of these bylaws to make sure they followed state law and RONR. However, these executive committee members and their supporters disrupted a meeting that was scheduled as an informal meeting to explain new bylaws and took over the meeting. They also shared lots of inaccurate and misleading information about the new bylaws at that meeting. They will likely try to take over the annual meeting just as they did at this informal meeting. Current constitution is badly written and has no workable provision for removing an officer (must do the trial thing, etc.) and has no provision for removing members. PRP told us that we could have an officer in jail for murder and we could not remove an officer under current constitution. Thus, these 3 executive committee members want to keep the current constitution and prevent a vote on the revision. The current constitution is so badly written that a group such as this can indeed take over an organization with over 100 Board members and over 10,000 members. The organization is in serious trouble. I appreciate any help you can give. 1. What do you do if 3 members of executive committee refuse to follow RONR and current constitution and try to control the organization by ignoring RONR and the constitution? 2. How do you remove 3 or 4 members at a time from a meeting?
  11. At a recent board meeting, our club president removed from the board meeting and censured the club secretary after repeated points of orders. The club president called for a penalty and made a motion of a 30 day suspension of the secretary. The vote passed 4 to 2. Now the president is stating that because of the 30 day suspension, the current secretary is removed from the position as well as any other position currently held. the president is also instructing the secretary to deliver all records of the club to himself. The president feels that the current club secretary can be removed from the position because the 30 day suspension defines the secretary as a member "not in good standing"' According to our bylaws. it states that under Article 3 Directors and officers , Section 1 Board of Directors "all of whom shall be members in good standing for at least two (2) years proceeding their nomination and who reside in the United States". Can our club president proceed with these actions in a legal manner. Their are 7 members of our board of directors with three of the members of the board voting with the club president against the secretary as this has become a personal issue with these board members. Without the votes of the board of directors, how can we stop an action which we feel is unjust and not in the bylaws. Is their a legal authority to contact when a board is acting out of the realm of the current bylaws? AS a club member and officer of the club, are their any actions or steps to taken that can help? our club is incorporated in the state of New York. Is their any legal ramifications or concerns that should be addressed? Help is needed Should we contact a parliamentarian and how and/or where? .And would this even make a difference?
  12. Recently at or board meeting, a club member lay charges against a board member for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the club. the charges were preferred by a board members wife. There are seven members of this board. It takes a majority for a quorum according to the bylaws. At this board meeting, one board member was absent from the meeting which left six. When the charges were read, the board member who had the charges filed against him had excused himself from the board meeting. Another board member excused herself for conflict of interest from a business deal they had in the past.. Another board member excused himself because his wife had lay charges against the board member. This left three members of the board present. At the end of the meeting, the three members left on the board decided to proceed and set a hearing date and time. My question is !)could this board of three act without a quorum? 2) is this an illegal action and how should the accused address this? is this not due process. 3) is there also a legal ramification involved? 4) the decision to proceed to a hearing seemed hastily done and i feel that this would net be a fair trial. how can this be handled or addressed
  13. If an organization's bylaws state the reasons and methods for a director's removal from office - even if those bylaws include the phrase "...or until his successor is elected" - would this not mean that the organization is limited to removing directors only for those reasons listed in the bylaws, as opposed to doing so "at the pleasure of the organization" as per RONR?
  14. Dear Forum, I am interested in the proper procedure for pursuing a motion of censure at the board meeting which *follows* the one in which statements (to the point of allegations) had been made. Under fire was business (actions) taken outside of board meetings. Some statements in the last board meeting fell short of outright allegations, as these were issued under a veil of multitudinous confusion (roughly "I cannothelp but think there must be some conflict of interest in the manner in which these directors have conducted themselves") yet despite other statements going so far as to contend improper communication through the media,and "undermining" and even"sabotaging the board's 2013 annual strategic plan", there was neither a board decision to appoint a committee to investigate the allegations, nor any call for retraction of the allegations. A majority of the board, including its chair, may have been unfamiliar and uncomfortable with how such allegations needed to be handled. Had it been a situation where a few directors had simply shown a lack of decorum, and had allowed themselves unduly emotional language attacking the ideas or proposals but not their makers, and had it been aboutbusiness that would be moot to again come before the board, I could understand how there would be little value to seek after-the-fact accountability for what had been uttered. However, these statements went beyond being ill tempered or indecorate, to construe conduct outside meetings as having been (and remaining) contrary to the best interests of the society, and – if followed to their conclusion – contend unfitness to continue to serve in office as a director, and the statements were made in front of guests, and not in executive session, thus with attendant risk of injury to reputation outside the society The allegations appear to have been fed by those directors who object to the subset of us who desire – among other changes – to reduce the number of directors (paid $1100 per day to attend board meetings) from 38to 10 + chair + 4 non-voting, which provision for amendments our bylaws permit any two members in good standing to make. The allegations also referenced our having pre-announced our bylaws amendment proposals in our professional journal. We did this because, last year, when we had proposed term limits, the board affixed, to each mailed ballot, a memodeclaring the board's unanimous opposition to term limits (some of us were not then directors) while refusing us, the proposers, to include with the ballot our reasons as to why we believed term limits were a good idea. Would it be in order, at the next meeting, for any directortoraise a point of order with respect to the remarks that are at issue, expressing the view that the allegations were of a kind that would be out of order to have been made without being acted upon, and that it be incumbent on the board to either appoint a committee to investigate the allegations, or (if there will be no investigation, on account of reluctance of those who made the allegations, and others on the board, to proceed) to concede as in order, despite that a majority of the board might oppose it, a motion of censure against those who had made such allegations together with those who permit these to stand while refusing to grant the accused the right of investigation My purpose would be to have captured, in the minutes, motions that (1) an investigative committee be appointed, and likely (2) a motion of censure, and that (3) the votes by taken by roll call (or signed ballot), so that even if these fail, they will be on record for later consideration by the larger membership.
  15. A non profit membership organization is being sued by one of its members. Club has services of attorney. As the organization is small, many of the board members have had past 'business relationships' or transactions with the plaintiff. The attorney periodically briefs the BOD on status of litigation. BOD may be asked to approve various courses of action, and eventually possibly a settlement. Some members of the BOD believes they can pass a motion 'recusing' another member from being present at the attorney's briefing and that the motion would in some manner remove that member from any participation in BOD discussion/deliberation/votes regarding the litigation. RONR notes that 'no member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuinary interest not common to other members of the organization. ... and notes that no member can be compeled to refrain from voting in such circumstances. Is there any action which could be taken to preclude the member from attending meetings and participating in discussions with the club attorney? That would certainly seem improper, as the member should be able to hear the information on which vote is to be made. ------------- Somewhere, (and I thought it was RONR) I read there was a statement about discipline procedures which allowed either complaintant or defendant to object to an individual sitting on Trial Board, and a provision for the assembly to 'disqualify' a member from deliberating?? Thanks, JJ
  16. I belong to a private national club. I was brought up on charges by another member, and a diciplinary hearing was held. I have sent emails to various board members requesting a copy of the transcript or minutes, and have been told that the board decided the meeting was a closed meeting and no minutes were taken. Yet a professional transcriptionist was preent and I was asked to give copies of all my documentation to her to for inclusion in her transcript. She did type throughout the hearing and ask for clarification on the spelling of names. My question is how do I go about getting a copy of the transcript when the board is telling me there are no minutes to give me and the subject is closed?
  17. Guest

    Bylaws Rules Conflict

    If our bylaws provide that Robert's Rules of Order will apply to all meetings and business transactions not otherwise specified in the bylaws, can a disciplinary committee be created in the Rules and Regs but not in the bylaws that outlines procedures different than those specified in Robert's Rules. The bylaws do state that committees can be appointed by the board and their duties outlined in the Rules and Regs and later that Rules and Regs are not to conflict with any bylaws.
  18. Guest

    Executive Session

    Are members of a board of a club who participate in an executive session meeting held to a standard regarding the confidentiality of the discussion in executive session? If a board member reveals to an outside party details of a discussion held in executive session, what remedies are available to the board/organization?
  19. We are a chartered organization of a state organization that includes Congressional District organizations as well. We have a member that is a state committee member and by default of our bylaws, is a voting member of our local county committee. This member has conducted himself that under normal circumstances would have brought him before the county committee on the charge of "conduct detrimental to the party" with the result being removed from his position. However, he is a state committee member and our bylaws as set by the state must allow state committee members be voting members of our county committee. Bottom line is that we cannot remove him from his position, but we need to suspend his interaction within our committee until the matter is resolved by the state committee. Censure is nothing but a reprimand and will not produce the action needed with this particular "loose cannon". The question that is being asked is: "Can the county committee call for and pass a temporary means of suspending the offending member's interaction within our local county committee that would include voting priveleges" as the means that will force the offending member to appeal the decision at the state committee level? The term suspension is used here as "a temporary method of halting or stopping an offending member until the offending member appeals our decision to lift his suspension by the state committee. It should be noted that our district chairman recommended censure and the General Counsel for the state told us that censure would be fine as long as the offending member knew he could appeal the decision at the state level. The problem we have with censure is that it does not appear to be anything more than a slap on the wrist and this will not matter to the offending member.
  • Create New...