Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

removing member


Guest joe r

Recommended Posts

Durning an BOD meeting, a person was attending from the general membership, a executive session was called, and said member was asked to

stay, unbeknown to him he was brought up on a charge, no prior notice was given,, he was voted off the membership roll, by a 2/3 majority.

Was this done in a legal way, our by-laws do not cover this topic, so it's supposed to adhere to RROR..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The expulsion is null and void. Under RONR, disciplinary authority is reserved for the general membership, and it is a lengthy process. See RONR, 10th ed., Ch. XX for more information.

If the board had the authority, should he been affored prior notice, and be present durning the vote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the board had the authority, should he been affored prior notice, and be present durning the vote

If the bylaws grant the Board the authority to expel members they should also specify the procedures that need to be taken. If they don't specify the procedures it will be up to you all to figure out the details of your customized rule (and amend the bylaws to codify whatever you all come up with).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the bylaws grant the Board the authority to expel members they should also specify the procedures that need to be taken. If they don't specify the procedures it will be up to you all to figure out the details of your customized rule (and amend the bylaws to codify whatever you all come up with).

our by-laws only states he has a right to a hearing before the BOD, but this was a spontaneous hearing, no notice was given to him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so apparently your Bylaws do cover this topic. Follow the customized rules in your Bylaws. If your Bylaws don't require notice, no notice is required.

I disagree with saying 'If not in the bylaws then not required' in this situation.

If RONR is adopted in the bylaws and bylaws say that "RONR governs the society in all situations AND where RONR is not inconsistent with the bylaws" (as most bylaws will state when adopting RONR), then according to RONR p. 631 l. 18-23 the person

accused has a RIGHT to due process, which includes being informed of the charge and being given time to prepare a defense.

How can the person have been given due process when they were just surprised by the invite and unknowingly stayed to find themself the defendant in a BOD trial?

I think their rights under the society rules have been violated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If RONR is adopted in the bylaws and bylaws say that "RONR governs the society in all situations AND where RONR is not inconsistent with the bylaws"...

And in this case the bylaws ARE inconsistent with RONR. Where the bylaws include language that covers a situation that is also covered in RONR according to parliamentary procedure, RONR defers to the bylaws. If the bylaws contained no section on disciplinary procedure, the rules in RONR would apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with saying 'If not in the bylaws then not required' in this situation.

If RONR is adopted in the bylaws and bylaws say that "RONR governs the society in all situations AND where RONR is not inconsistent with the bylaws" (as most bylaws will state when adopting RONR), then according to RONR p. 631 l. 18-23 the person

accused has a RIGHT to due process, which includes being informed of the charge and being given time to prepare a defense.

How can the person have been given due process when they were just surprised by the invite and unknowingly stayed to find themself the defendant in a BOD trial?

I think their rights under the society rules have been violated.

The procedure in the Bylaws takes precedence over the procedure in Ch. XX of RONR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in this case the bylaws ARE inconsistent with RONR. Where the bylaws include language that covers a situation that is also covered in RONR according to parliamentary procedure, RONR defers to the bylaws. If the bylaws contained no section on disciplinary procedure, the rules in RONR would apply.

The only info provided on the bylaws was the right to a hearing before the Board,

which is giving a forum with judge, but not a procedure for the hearing. Perhaps the poster can provide

the exact bylaws language if there is more to it. I didn't see mention by the poster of bylaws language

that covered procedural matters of notice and time to prepare, or anything else about how

the hearing was to be conducted, which is why I would draw that from RONR (looking at the

language in RONR for the absolutes and the rights, not the 'should' or 'can' language).

I'm looking at this from the perspective of a hearing as a right of the accused, not a right of the board.

As a right of the accused, a hearing provides fair opportunity to defend against charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only info provided on the bylaws was the right to a hearing before the Board,

which is giving a forum with judge, but not a procedure for the hearing. Perhaps the poster can provide

the exact bylaws language if there is more to it. I didn't see mention by the poster of bylaws language

that covered procedural matters of notice and time to prepare, or anything else about how

the hearing was to be conducted, which is why I would draw that from RONR .....

...or, one might consider RONR p 571 #4 and note that these bylaws specifically provide for a hearing, and nothing else, as far as we know. One could perhaps argue, then, that when the drafters considered this section on discipline, this is what they chose to include. The bylaws provide for a hearing; he got one. I certainly understand your overall sense of justice and wanting there to be more, but only this group can decide what their bylaws mean on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only info provided on the bylaws was the right to a hearing before the Board, which is giving a forum with judge, but not a procedure for the hearing.

Perhaps the poster can provide the exact bylaws language if there is more to it. I didn't see mention by the poster of bylaws language that covered procedural matters of notice and time to prepare, or anything else about how the hearing was to be conducted, which is why I would draw that from RONR (looking at the

language in RONR for the absolutes and the rights, not the 'should' or 'can' language).

I'm looking at this from the perspective of a hearing as a right of the accused, not a right of the board.

As a right of the accused, a hearing provides fair opportunity to defend against charges.

Note that the original post said this.

Durning an BOD meeting, a person was attending from the general membership, a executive session was called, and said member was asked to stay,

unbeknown to him he was brought up on a charge, no prior notice was given,, he was voted off the membership roll, by a 2/3 majority.

Was this done in a legal way, our by-laws do not cover this topic, so it's supposed to adhere to RROR?

If the board had the authority, should he been afforded prior notice, and be present durning the vote?

Our by-laws only states

he has a right to a hearing before the BOD,

but this was a spontaneous hearing, no notice was given to him.

I'm looking at this from the perspective of a hearing as a right of the accused, not a right of the board.

As a right of the accused, a hearing provides fair opportunity to defend against charges.

I agree. -- A hearing provides a fair opportunity to defend against the charges.

But their customized rule does not have any pre-delay built-in.

RONR allows for time for a building-up of a defense.

Their customized rule does not allow time to build a defense.

Why the organization freely chose to throw away the detailed disciplinary process of RONR (Chapter XX) for their customized stream-lined process, I cannot fathom.

The lack of time to create a defense should have been built-in to their customized procedure. But they choose not to go that route. The organization (the body who adopted and amended the bylaws) is under no obligation to include defense-time for their disciplinary procedures.

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the board had the authority, should he been affored prior notice, and be present durning the vote

If the board had the authority, that would have to be in the bylaws, and so would the procedure for carrying it out. Since the bylaws are silent, they don't have the authority, so things won't be the same as if they did.

If things were different, they wouldn't be the same.

(If my aunt had wheels, she'd be a teacart.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the board had the authority, that would have to be in the bylaws, and so would the procedure for carrying it out. Since the bylaws are silent, they don't have the authority, so things won't be the same as if they did.

If things were different, they wouldn't be the same.

(If my aunt had wheels, she'd be a teacart.)

our by-laws only states he has a right to a hearing before the BOD, but this was a spontaneous hearing, no notice was given to him

It appears the Bylaws aren't completely silent on discipline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...