Disciplinary Suspension application

[Sean Hunt]

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.

I've never considered the list of possible penalties to be prescriptive. For instance, a condo association ought to be able to impose a suspension of pool access for some period of time as a result of abuse, or something similar. To suspend all the rights of membership, I would think, is a power that the assembly ultimately has when exercised at a trial. In particular, the assembly can certainly impose expulsion; why could it not impose any lesser penalty of a similar nature?

[J. J.]

As I said, the only thing I could think of was the indeterminate time frame. The assembly clearly could expel the indicted member, as you noted.

This would act to protect the society and would not cause the accused to face the ultimate penalty unfairly.

[Sean Hunt]

As I said, the only thing I could think of was the indeterminate time frame. The assembly clearly could expel the indicted member, as you noted.

This would act to protect the society and would not cause the accused to face the ultimate penalty unfairly.

I would say that 'until he apologizes' is an indeterminate time frame as well. I don't see that there's any basis in Robert's Rules to ground an objection to the penalty solely on the basis that the assembly does not know how long it may take for the penalty to expire.

[J. J.]

I would say that 'until he apologizes' is an indeterminate time frame as well. I don't see that there's any basis in Robert's Rules to ground an objection to the penalty solely on the basis that the assembly does not know how long it may take for the penalty to expire.

I have to concur. Basically, that answers my first two questions.

If there would be a second trial, the charge could be the same, but:

Specification: In that _______ has committed the crime of ________.

[Trina]

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?"

It may be nitpicking, but the point I was trying to make was not that the society couldn't or shouldn't protect itself against the embarassment caused by the member's arrest, nor did I mean to suggest that the standard of proof would have to be the same as in a civil (let alone criminal) court.

It was the description of what the member did -- 'placing himself in a position where he was charged' -- that I objected to. It's possible that no one who will speak at the disciplinary hearing has any knowledge or information at all about what the member may have done to 'place himself' in this position. This would be especially true if the person's arrest came as a total surprise to the society.

Wouldn't it be more straightforward to say the 'member X is suspected of having engaged in [actually name the egregious act, whatever it is], which tends to damage the good name of the society.' Then, the fact that the member was arrested and charged will directly support that first statement.

[J. J.]

It may be nitpicking, but the point I was trying to make was not that the society couldn't or shouldn't protect itself against the embarassment caused by the member's arrest, nor did I mean to suggest that the standard of proof would have to be the same as in a civil (let alone criminal) court.

It was the description of what the member did -- 'placing himself in a position where he was charged' -- that I objected to. It's possible that no one who will speak at the disciplinary hearing has any knowledge or information at all about what the member may have done to 'place himself' in this position. This would be especially true if the person's arrest came as a total surprise to the society.

That would be in the indictment.

Wouldn't it be more straightforward to say the 'member X is suspected of having engaged in [actually name the egregious act, whatever it is], which tends to damage the good name of the society.' Then, the fact that the member was arrested and charged will directly support that first statement.

It would not be the same.

The specification is:

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

This is something more than the member has a reputation of committing an act that is a crime.

[Trina]

The specification is:

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

This is something more than the member has a reputation of committing an act that is a crime.

Except that it could also be something less... although we hope such errors are rare, people are sometimes arrested and indicted in error, or through deliberate malice on someone else's part (i.e. being 'framed' for something). In that case, the only 'conduct' the member may have engaged in is being in the wrong place at the wrong time. There seems no question the hypothetical member is under suspicion, but whether he actually engaged in any 'conduct' to put himself there is less clear.

I realize this is not at the crux of the questions you were asking in the first post.

[J. J.]

Except that it could also be something less... although we hope such errors are rare, people are sometimes arrested and indicted in error, or through deliberate malice on someone else's part (i.e. being 'framed' for something). In that case, the only 'conduct' the member may have engaged in is being in the wrong place at the wrong time. There seems no question the hypothetical member is under suspicion, but whether he actually engaged in any 'conduct' to put himself there is less clear.

I realize this is not at the crux of the questions you were asking in the first post.

A "reputation" is not indictable. The good thing about is that if the person was indicted in error, his membership rights will be restored as soon as the indictment is quashed.

[Guest Burke Balch]

A reputation may not be indictable, but an indictment may damage a reputation.

[J. J.]

A reputation may not be indictable, but an indictment may damage a reputation.

Of both the individual and the organization.