Disciplinary Suspension application

[J. J.]

A member of the society is charged with a severe crime, though nothing directly related to his membership. Many members feel that with this cloud over the member, it will damage the society for the charged member to continue his membership unimpaired. Still, many members are concerned about removing him if he should demonstrate that he did not commit the acts he is charged with in court.

It could be argued that the charged member has engaged in "conduct tending to injure the good name of the organization," just be placing himself in a position where he was charged.

1. Could the member be tried on that charge? (My guess is yes.)

2. If yes to #1, could the penalty inflicted, be "suspension until there is a verdict in the criminal trial?"

3. If yes to #2, could the be tried for any information brought out in the criminal trial (including a verdict of guilty)?

[Sean Hunt]

A member of the society is charged with a severe crime, though nothing directly related to his membership. Many members feel that with this cloud over the member, it will damage the society for the charged member to continue his membership unimpaired. Still, many members are concerned about removing him if he should demonstrate that he did not commit the acts he is charged with in court.

It could be argued that the charged member has engaged in "conduct tending to injure the good name of the organization," just be placing himself in a position where he was charged.

1. Could the member be tried on that charge? (My guess is yes.)

2. If yes to #1, could the penalty inflicted, be "suspension until there is a verdict in the criminal trial?"

3. If yes to #2, could the be tried for any information brought out in the criminal trial (including a verdict of guilty)?

I don't see why not. Ultimately it is up to the membership to decide what constitution violations, and what penalties to impose. That said, the answer to #3 would probably be "no" if the (assembly's) charge was related to the actual crime, and not merely being (criminally) charged with that crime. I would probably prefer that the penalty be something along the lines of "suspension until reviewed at another trial to be held after the verdict of the criminal trial".

[Gary Novosielski]

I don't see why not. Ultimately it is up to the membership to decide what constitution violations, and what penalties to impose. That said, the answer to #3 would probably be "no" if the (assembly's) charge was related to the actual crime, and not merely being (criminally) charged with that crime. I would probably prefer that the penalty be something along the lines of "suspension until reviewed at another trial to be held after the verdict of the criminal trial".

Or perhaps "after the conclusion of the criminal trial" since it might end in dismissal or in some other way be concluded without a verdict actually being handed down.

[Josh Martin]

1. Could the member be tried on that charge? (My guess is yes.)

2. If yes to #1, could the penalty inflicted, be "suspension until there is a verdict in the criminal trial?"

3. If yes to #2, could the be tried for any information brought out in the criminal trial (including a verdict of guilty)?

From a parliamentary perspective, I believe the answer is "Yes" to all three questions (although I concur with Mr. Novosielski that "conclusion" is preferable to "verdict").

That said, the answer to #3 would probably be "no" if the (assembly's) charge was related to the actual crime, and not merely being (criminally) charged with that crime.

I think the suggestion is that the guilty verdict from the trial would be used as additional proof that the member is, in fact, guilty of the charge laid against him.

[Shmuel Gerber]

A member of the society is charged with a severe crime, though nothing directly related to his membership. Many members feel that with this cloud over the member, it will damage the society for the charged member to continue his membership unimpaired. Still, many members are concerned about removing him if he should demonstrate that he did not commit the acts he is charged with in court.

It could be argued that the charged member has engaged in "conduct tending to injure the good name of the organization," just be placing himself in a position where he was charged.

1. Could the member be tried on that charge? (My guess is yes.)

What do you mean by "placing himself in a position where he was charged"?

What is the specification -- the particular act that "the accused is alleged to have done which, if true, constitutes an instance of the offense indicated in the charge" (RONR 11th ed., p. 662, ll. 4-6)?

[dglynch]

What do you mean by "placing himself in a position where he was charged"?

What is the specification -- the particular act that "the accused is alleged to have done which, if true, constitutes an instance of the offense indicated in the charge" (RONR 11th ed., p. 662, ll. 4-6)?

It sounds like they are suggesting members must be truly beyond reproach in order to avoid discipline, and that "being accused of a crime by the authorities" is the specification of the charge.

[J. J.]

What do you mean by "placing himself in a position where he was charged"?

What is the specification -- the particular act that "the accused is alleged to have done which, if true, constitutes an instance of the offense indicated in the charge" (RONR 11th ed., p. 662, ll. 4-6)?

His activities were sufficient that he had been charged by a grand jury, in this case (and no, this is not a hypothetical nor a client). Dan L. is sort of right in his assessment. Some members feel that just being charged is sufficient "conduct tending to injure the good name of the organization. (p. 662, ll. 12-13)."

You obviously could discipline a member for a reputation of criminal activity, even if there is no legal evidence to convict the person in court.

[Shmuel Gerber]

It sounds like they are suggesting members must be truly beyond reproach in order to avoid discipline, and that "being accused of a crime by the authorities" is the specification of the charge.

His activities were sufficient that he had been charged by a grand jury, in this case (and no, this is not a hypothetical nor a client). Dan L. is sort of right in his assessment. Some members feel that just being charged is sufficient "conduct tending to injure the good name of the organization. (p. 662, ll. 12-13)."

You obviously could discipline a member for a reputation of criminal activity, even if there is no legal evidence to convict the person in court.

In my opinion, "being charged" is not an act on the part of the accused, and "placing himself in the position of being charged" is so vague as to be meaningless. You still haven't drafted a specification that would be suitable for adoption as part of a disciplinary resolution as shown in the example in RONR 11th ed., p. 660, lines 10-19. Until that is done, there is no basis for proceeding with full disciplinary action under the rules in RONR. (The fact of his being charged by a grand jury is, of course, as good a basis as any for a resolution to appoint an investigating committee.) Once the specifications are properly drafted, it becomes a question for the organization to decide whether the conduct named in the specifications support the charge, rather than a question of the rules in RONR.

[J. J.]

In my opinion, "being charged" is not an act on the part of the accused, and "placing himself in the position of being charged" is so vague as to be meaningless. You still haven't drafted a specification that would be suitable for adoption as part of a disciplinary resolution as shown in the example in RONR 11th ed., p. 660, lines 10-19. Until that is done, there is no basis for proceeding with full disciplinary action under the rules in RONR. (The fact of his being charged by a grand jury is, of course, as good a basis as any for a resolution to appoint an investigating committee.) Once the specifications are properly drafted, it becomes a question for the organization to decide whether the conduct named in the specifications support the charge, rather than a question of the rules in RONR.

Well, the conduct, or specification, could be "being indicted." For example:

Charge: Conduct tending to injure the good name of this organization.

Specification: In that _______ has conducted himself so as to be indicted for the crime of ________.

In most cases in the US, someone could not be indicted unless there was some evidence of conduct.

Now, it is clearly up to the society if they feel that this would constitute an actionable offense and, if so, what penalty it should apply. I would argue that the allegation on which the member being indicted could constitute "conduct tending to injure the good name of this organization." It certainly is more solid that the "reputation" mentioned on p. 660, ll. 10-14.

[Rob Elsman]

Well, the conduct, or specification, could be "being indicted." For example:

Charge: Conduct tending to injure the good name of this organization.

Specification: In that _______ has conducted himself so as to be indicted for the crime of ________.

In most cases in the US, someone could not be indicted unless there was some evidence of conduct.

Now, it is clearly up to the society if they feel that this would constitute an actionable offense and, if so, what penalty it should apply. I would argue that the allegation on which the member being indicted could constitute "conduct tending to injure the good name of this organization." It certainly is more solid that the "reputation" mentioned on p. 660, ll. 10-14.

You have confused what is alleged in the specification with the proofs. If the indictment alleges that the member stole a car and robbed a bank, then the specification should allege the theft and robbery, and the indictment entered as evidence in trial that the member is guilty of what is alleged in the specification.

[J. J.]

You have confused what is alleged in the specification with the proofs. If the indictment alleges that the member stole a car and robbed a bank, then the specification should allege the theft and robbery, and the indictment entered as evidence in trial that the member is guilty of what is alleged in the specification.

No, I'm not confusing the proof. I am saying that a member indicted could conceivable damage the good name of the organization. That does not presume that he is guilty of what the indictment claims.

[Rob Elsman]

No, I'm not confusing the proof. I am saying that a member indicted could conceivable damage the good name of the organization. That does not presume that he is guilty of what the indictment claims.

What you are suggesting is that the member sat on the grand jury that indicted him. That's just ridiculous.

[Dan Honemann]

No, I'm not confusing the proof. I am saying that a member indicted could conceivable damage the good name of the organization. That does not presume that he is guilty of what the indictment claims.

I agree.

[J. J.]

What you are suggesting is that the member sat on the grand jury that indicted him. That's just ridiculous.

Where do you get that? The indictment of a member could be (but not necessarily, would be) a ground for disciplinary action, as the fact that he was indicted could damage the good name of the organization.

You can assume this is the charge:

Charge: Conduct tending to injure the good name of this organization.

Specification: In that _______ has conducted himself so as to be indicted for the crime of ________.

My immediate question is, if the member is tried by the society and found guilty, could the penalty be that the member be suspended "until the conclusion of the criminal trial?"

[Rob Elsman]

Where do you get that? The indictment of a member could be (but not necessarily, would be) a ground for disciplinary action, as the fact that he was indicted could damage the good name of the organization.

You can assume this is the charge:

Charge: Conduct tending to injure the good name of this organization.

Specification: In that _______ has conducted himself so as to be indicted for the crime of ________.

My immediate question is, if the member is tried by the society and found guilty, could the penalty be that the member be suspended "until the conclusion of the criminal trial?"

If a member participates in a conspiracy in a grand jury to wrongly indict (frame) someone else for a crime, he can, indeed, be the subject of a disciplinary action, as you note. In this case, however, a finding of guilt in a trial should be considered to be definitive for the purpose of inflicting a punishment, so the member should simply be expelled from the society, notwithstanding that a criminal trial is pending (and may, in fact, find him not guilty!).

[J. J.]

If a member participates in a conspiracy in a grand jury to wrongly indict (frame) someone else for a crime, he can, indeed, be the subject of a disciplinary action, as you note. In this case, however, a finding of guilt in a trial should be considered to be definitive for the purpose of inflicting a punishment, so the member should simply be expelled from the society, notwithstanding that a criminal trial is pending (and may, in fact, find him not guilty!).

Rob, the conduct of the accused had let to his indictment, obviously. That could be in or appart from a grand jury. That conduct does not necessarily mean that he is guilty of the charge alleged in the indictment or that, ultimately, he had done anything the assembly would find improper. That his conduct was such that he was indicted is what has damaged the good name of the society,

The specification is:

Specification: In that _______ has conducted himself so as to be indicted for the crime of ________.

My question is, if the member is tried by the society and found guilty, on that charge, could the penalty be that the member be suspended "until the conclusion of the criminal trial?"

[Rob Elsman]

Rob, the conduct of the accused had let to his indictment, obviously. That could be in or appart from a grand jury. That conduct does not necessarily mean that he is guilty of the charge alleged in the indictment or that, ultimately, he had done anything the assembly would find improper. That his conduct was such that he was indicted is what has damaged the good name of the society,

The specification is:

Specification: In that _______ has conducted himself so as to be indicted for the crime of ________.

My question is, if the member is tried by the society and found guilty, on that charge, could the penalty be that the member be suspended "until the conclusion of the criminal trial?"

Again, if the member is alleged in the grand jury indictment to have stolen a car and robbed a bank, then the specification should allege the theft and robbery, and the grand jury indictment can be entered as evidence at the trial in the society's assembly as a proof of the member's guilt (it being up to the individual members of the assembly to weigh the value of such a proof). If the member is found guilty of the theft and robbery, the finding is definitive as to the infliction of the punishment. The offender should be immediately expelled from the society, notwithstanding that a criminal trial is still pending (and may, in fact, find him not guilty!).

[J. J.]

Again, if the member is alleged in the grand jury indictment to have stolen a car and robbed a bank, then the specification should allege the theft and robbery, and the grand jury indictment can be entered as evidence at the trial in the society's assembly as a proof of the member's guilt (it being up to the individual members of the assembly to weigh the value of such a proof). If the member is found guilty of the theft and robbery, the finding is definitive as to the infliction of the punishment. The offender should be immediately expelled from the society, notwithstanding that a criminal trial is still pending (and may, in fact, find him not guilty!).

That is not the charge. The assembly makes claim regarding the underlying charge, only that the members action caused him to be indicted and that damaged the society's good name.

[J. J.]

That is not the charge. The assembly makes claim regarding the underlying charge, only that the members action caused him to be indicted and that damaged the society's good name.

That should be that the assembly makes no claim regarding the underlying charge.

[David A Foulkes]

My question is, if the member is tried by the society and found guilty, on that charge, could the penalty be that the member be suspended "until the conclusion of the criminal trial?"

As I read this, I would understand it to mean that at the conclusion of the criminal trial, his suspension would be automatically lifted. I suspect what your underlying intention here is to revisit his "case" at that time, and should he be found not guilty at the criminal trial, you would lift his suspension and fully reinstate all his membership rights (assuming he still wanted to be a member of the society). However, should he be found guilty, it would seem you'd need to hold further disciplinary procedures in an (expected) attempt to expel him.

[J. J.]

As I read this, I would understand it to mean that at the conclusion of the criminal trial, his suspension would be automatically lifted.

Yes, and as you assume, whatever the result of the trial, the suspended member may face the underlying charge. If, for example, he was charged in the indictment with armed robbery, the society may determine if what was brought out in the criminal trial would sufficient to proceed with fresh charges.

I suspect what your underlying intention here is to revisit his "case" at that time, and should he be found not guilty at the criminal trial, you would lift his suspension and fully reinstate all his membership rights (assuming he still wanted to be a member of the society). However, should he be found guilty, it would seem you'd need to hold further disciplinary procedures in an (expected) attempt to expel him.

That could ultimately be the effect. The member might acquitted in court. The society could find the accused member was guilty of sufficiently bad (but not criminal conduct) to face disciplinary charges. Likewise, he could be found guilty in court and the society could choose to permit him to remain a member.

I will admit the latter is unlikely with this group, but another group of which I am a member has a member on death row in Florida.

[Trina]

I find this whole idea obnoxious -- i.e. that having someone else say something unpleasant about a member is construed as the member having taken an action of some kind which justifies disciplinary action. A criminal charge may be a pretty severe instance of an unpleasant comment, but isn't that still what it is? Where is the act on the part of the member? How would the specification be worded?

'Placing himself in a position where he was charged' sounds pretty lame as the description of an act. Making the charge was someone else's action.

From a parliamentary perspective, I'm not sure, since I haven't studied Ch. XX in detail. It just seems a very vague and pusilanimous approach to making a charge against the member.

[J. J.]

I find this whole idea obnoxious -- i.e. that having someone else say something unpleasant about a member is construed as the member having taken an action of some kind which justifies disciplinary action. A criminal charge may be a pretty severe instance of an unpleasant comment, but isn't that still what it is? Where is the act on the part of the member? How would the specification be worded?

'Placing himself in a position where he was charged' sounds pretty lame as the description of an act. Making the charge was someone else's action.

From a parliamentary perspective, I'm not sure, since I haven't studied Ch. XX in detail. It just seems a very vague and pusilanimous approach to making a charge against the member.

Chapter XX includes a charge based on the "reputation" of the accused among some of his "acquaintances," not necessarily members of the society (p. 660, ll. 10-14). This, an actual criminal indictment, is much stronger than the member's "reputation."

The 4th edition noted on p. 304 that someone reputed to be a pickpocket could be expelled from the society, while that same reputation would be insufficient to convict or try the same person in a civil court.

Again, my question is, if the member is found guilty of the charge, can the penalty be suspension " "until the conclusion of the criminal trial?"

[Sean Hunt]

Again, my question is, if the member is found guilty of the charge, can the penalty be suspension " "until the conclusion of the criminal trial?"

And again, my answer is "why not?"

[J. J.]

And again, my answer is "why not?"

The only "why not" is the unspecified time of the suspension.

I'm thinking of other cases, e.g. the member is until he reimburses the society for damages or until he apologizes.