Judicial / Trial Procedures

[Guest Kelvin]

Hello,

I am apart of a student organization, and a member (President) has been found guilty of doing things that are grounds for removal, as stated in our constitution.

A formal report/complaint was submitted to a Disciplinary Committee made up of members of the board. The committee convened, and made a recommendation to start trial procedure by mailing the list of charges and date of the trial to the accused. (Just a note, the chairperson for this committee decided on the alternate trial route, in which the Committee and not the body will serve as the "Jury").

From my reading of RONR 11th ed, I believe what happens next is that after the trial, the members of the committee will convene and vote on 2 things, the question of guilt on the charges/specifications, and a recommended penalty. Once that is done, it will be brought to the Body and will be voted on.

With that, I have a few questions.

1) Is it correct to assume that when it is time to vote for whether the member is guilty or not / the recommended penalty, majority vote of the disciplinary committee is required (Even if the recommendation is removal from office)? And then, when the Society votes on the recommendation for removal from office a, a two-thirds vote is required?

2) Can anyone tell me the procedure for an appeals committee? I looked around RONR, but it seems specific to our constitution. It only says however that that the appeals committee "..shall review and make recommendations regarding the appeal of a resolution made by the Judicial Committee." Can someone tell me the process for that? My assumption is that once a recommendation is made, the accused can make an appeal, in which the appeals committee will then convene and decide whether the appeal has any basis. But then what? Will the appeal committee's recommendation be brought to the body? Can the body reject this appeal (By voting) and accept/vote on the judicial committee's original review?

Truthfully, the reason why I am asking is because I am completely tired of this game of politics that has been running around in office. It's been almost two months since I started the process all together. The President is clearly unfit for the position, and more than 2/3rds of the entire body already know that his actions have warranted him to be removed from office. The problem is that they've been using every trick to stall the process, and have been successful to a degree. Which is why I bought RONR and began studying it, so I can do this in the most efficient manner. However, there seems to be a very vague description surrounding the appeals process, which I predict he will continue to use as a way to stall the process further.

Thank you, and I hope I can get some help.

[Chris Harrison]

1) You seem to have customized rules regarding discipline so RONR is going to be of little help. However, RONR p. 668 says that when a Chapter XX trial takes place (which yours wouldn't exactly be) removal from office takes a majority vote and expulsion from membership takes a 2/3 vote. Does the Disciplinary Committee (or its Chairperson) have the authority under the Constitution to decide who will be the jury in the trial?

2) Under RONR there is no such creature as an Appeals Committee or a Judicial Committee so again you have custom rules that you all will need to decipher for yourselves.