Disciplinary Committee Recommendation

[Guest Mark]

Hello,

We've recently had a trial involving the removal of a member from office. It went en route of having a trial by committee, instead of a trial by body. However, friends of the accused were members of the committee, and showed clear bias during deliberation, which outraged a number of the members of the body.

I know that it states in RONR that the assembly can only reduce and/or decline to impose any penalty, based on the committee's report.

However, the specific wording in our by laws state that our investigative committee may only make recommendations, which is something that still needs to be accepted/rejected based on majority vote. The people who want the person removed are 10 out of 15 members, making up 2/3rds, and will most definitely reject the recommendation.

My question is, what happens after that? Are the charges dropped? Or can a member make a motion to remove the person from office? Or perhaps even motion to have the disciplinary committee reconvene?

Thanks

[Sean Hunt]

Hello,

We've recently had a trial involving the removal of a member from office. It went en route of having a trial by committee, instead of a trial by body. However, friends of the accused were members of the committee, and showed clear bias during deliberation, which outraged a number of the members of the body.

I know that it states in RONR that the assembly can only reduce and/or decline to impose any penalty, based on the committee's report.

However, the specific wording in our by laws state that our investigative committee may only make recommendations, which is something that still needs to be accepted/rejected based on majority vote. The people who want the person removed are 10 out of 15 members, making up 2/3rds, and will most definitely reject the recommendation.

My question is, what happens after that? Are the charges dropped? Or can a member make a motion to remove the person from office? Or perhaps even motion to have the disciplinary committee reconvene?

Thanks

The trial procedure in Chapter XX only apply where your bylaws are silent on the matter of discipline. If your bylaws specify some manner of discipline, then they should be followed.

[Gary c Tesser]

However, the specific wording in our by laws state that our investigative committee may only make recommendations,

How do you see that as any different from what RONR says?

The people who want the person removed are 10 out of 15 members [...]

And these are the accused's partisans? What do his opponents want for him, lunch with crocodiles? (Did Guest Mark leave out a "not" or two, or inadvertently reverse his meaning in haste; or have I misunderstood?)

My question is, what happens after that? Are the charges dropped? Or can a member make a motion to remove the person from office? Or perhaps even motion to have the disciplinary committee reconvene?

After what? If Guest Mark has read Chapter Twenty ("XX" to those who think exotic beer is punishment), particularly towards the end, p. 668 - 669, he knows that the assembly acts on the committee's recommendations, and "-it cannot increase the recommended penalty.-" I'll confess RONR still looks skimpy on everything about the trial committee -- but the 11th Edition is only a month old yet, and more stuff may turn up -- so even though "the assembly cannot impose a penalty if the trial committee has found the accused not guilty," I don't see a restriction on the assembly's finding the accused guilt. Yes, the assembly cannot impose a penalty; but the verdict would be on the (secret) record.

So, specifically: the charges don't have to be dropped. A motion to remove from office can only be made if the trial committee recommended that, or worse. And what do you expect from a reconvening of the committee if the same people are on it?

Thanks

Oh, you're welcome by now I guess, if you still want to thank me.

[Guest Mark]

Oh, you're welcome by now I guess, if you still want to thank me.

I do indeed would still like to thank you. A response is a response, especially since it was in depth and provided relevant information.

And these are the accused's partisans? What do his opponents want for him, lunch with crocodiles? (Did Guest Mark leave out a "not" or two, or inadvertently reverse his meaning in haste; or have I misunderstood?)

The "Accused's" partisans are voting members of the body who simply do not agree with the verdict. The Disciplinary Committee did find the accused guilty of the charges, but imposed a leniant penalty. Also, I apologize but I do not understand what you mean when you say I left out a "not" or two.

[...] so even though "the assembly cannot impose a penalty if the trial committee has found the accused not guilty," I don't see a restriction on the assembly's finding the accused guilt. Yes, the assembly cannot impose a penalty; but the verdict would be on the (secret) record.

Can you please clarify this "Secret" record?

So, specifically: the charges don't have to be dropped. A motion to remove from office can only be made if the trial committee recommended that, or worse. And what do you expect from a reconvening of the committee if the same people are on it?

This is the reason why I want a motion to reconvene the committee. I know that it states in RONR that a motion to impeach cannot be directly made unless the trial committee recommends it. However, it doesn't state anywhere in our By Laws that our disciplinary committee also doubles as the trial committee. Therefore, the trial process could've gone either the "Trial by Committee" or "Trial by the Society" route. Would a motion to reconvene the trial with the Body as the the voting members be possible? Or will it be deemed out of order?

In any case, once again, I thank you for the response, it is much appreciated.

[J. J.]

The "Accused's" partisans are voting members of the body who simply do not agree with the verdict. The Disciplinary Committee did find the accused guilty of the charges, but imposed a leniant penalty. Also, I apologize but I do not understand what you mean when you say I left out a "not" or two.

And they are free to vote that way.

Can you please clarify this "Secret" record?

Disciplinary actions are to be held in executive (secret) session (pp. 644-5).

This is the reason why I want a motion to reconvene the committee. I know that it states in RONR that a motion to impeach cannot be directly made unless the trial committee recommends it. However, it doesn't state anywhere in our By Laws that our disciplinary committee also doubles as the trial committee. Therefore, the trial process could've gone either the "Trial by Committee" or "Trial by the Society" route. Would a motion to reconvene the trial with the Body as the the voting members be possible? Or will it be deemed out of order?

Since the committee has reported, I do not believe the motion could be discharged. Nothing in RONR would prevent the member from being charged and tried again on the same charges, if the assembly chooses not to find the member guilty.

[Guest Mark]

And they are free to vote that way.

[...]

Since the committee has reported, I do not believe the motion could be discharged. Nothing in RONR would prevent the member from being charged and tried again on the same charges, if the assembly chooses not to find the member guilty.

So, the assembly (the society) does have the power to deny/vote against the recommendation that the committee has made. What would be the course of action after that? Does someone else (Member or committee member?) have to propose a new recommendation? Or do the charges simply float around? The problem is that the majority of the members do not agree with the lenient penalty, and I'd like to know what the next course of action would be once the recommendation has been voted against.

Thank you!

[Gary c Tesser]

Nothing in RONR would prevent the member from being charged and tried again on the same charges, if the assembly chooses not to find the member guilty.

Guest Mark, I have been somewhat hazy on exactly what your organization’s procedures are: hence some misunderstanding, and some of my questions. Is there a Disciplinary Committee, and if so, what do the bylaws direct it to do? Apparently, it already held the trial; and J. J., at least, is of the opinion that the trial can’t be done over at this point, even if you want to assign the second trial to a different committee or to the membership assembly.

And I didn’t understand how the two sides stacked up. I see a 2/3 preponderance (I was gonna call it a 2/3 majority, can you believe it?) in favor of less lenient treatment of the accused officer (I’m tired of calling him that, let’s call him Margaret Duffy, since we’re already familiar with her). And I’m gathering by now that the disciplinary committee somehow was mostly populated by the otherwise-outnumbered friends of Margaret. I thought it was the other way around in my earlier post (#3), which is why I thought you (Guest Mark) might have meant “making up 2/3rds, and will most definitely NOT reject the recommendation.” (That is, it wasn’t clear to me, either, what the recommendation actually was -- especially that it was for leniency that the 2/3 disliked. And that’s what I meant about dropping out a significant word, like “not,” when typing.)

What I’m guessing now is that the organization is using RONR’s disciplinary procedures as a basic structure, with only a few of its own modifications. ( -- Sean, is that what you meant?)

So as things stand now, it looks to me as if the organization is stuck with imposing the lenient penalty recommended by the trial committee (whoever they are). Or you might try to start the whole disciplinary procedure over from scratch: J. J. thinks you can; I’m not so sure.

[Tim Wynn]

Hello,

We've recently had a trial involving the removal of a member from office. It went en route of having a trial by committee, instead of a trial by body. However, friends of the accused were members of the committee, and showed clear bias during deliberation, which outraged a number of the members of the body.

I know that it states in RONR that the assembly can only reduce and/or decline to impose any penalty, based on the committee's report.

However, the specific wording in our by laws state that our investigative committee may only make recommendations, which is something that still needs to be accepted/rejected based on majority vote. The people who want the person removed are 10 out of 15 members, making up 2/3rds, and will most definitely reject the recommendation.

My question is, what happens after that? Are the charges dropped? Or can a member make a motion to remove the person from office? Or perhaps even motion to have the disciplinary committee reconvene?

Thanks

Are you saying that the assembly wants to reject the recommendation because the recommended penalty is not severe enough?

[J. J.]

So, the assembly (the society) does have the power to deny/vote against the recommendation that the committee has made. What would be the course of action after that? Does someone else (Member or committee member?) have to propose a new recommendation? Or do the charges simply float around? The problem is that the majority of the members do not agree with the lenient penalty, and I'd like to know what the next course of action would be once the recommendation has been voted against.

Thank you!

The only limitation I see on the assembly is that they cannot increase a penalty after the finding of guilt. I cannot address your bylaw requirement, but there is nothing in RONR to prevent identical charges from being filed again and process to start again.

The problem remains, it might have to go back to the same committee.

[Burke Balch]

However, the specific wording in our by laws state that our investigative committee may only make recommendations, which is something that still needs to be accepted/rejected based on majority vote

An "investigative committee" and a "trial committee" are two different entities under RONR. The investigative committee makes recommendations regarding whether the accused should be exonerated or whether a resolution preferring charges should be adopted. RONR specifically says that "If the investigating committee submits a report that does not recommend preferral of charges, it is within the power of the assembly nevertheless to adopt a resolution that does prefer charges" (p. 658n).

In order for the trial on the charges to be held before a "trial committee," the resolution preferring charges must provide for that (see p. 661). it is true that once the trial has taken place before the trial committee, "The assembly cannot impose a penalty if the trial committee has found the accused not guilty." RONR (11th ed.), p. 669, ll. 6-8.

Of course, whatever the bylaws say trump what RONR says -- but, if RONR is the adopted parliamentary authority, its rules are followed where the bylaws are silent. If, as the quote above from the question suggests, the bylaws refer to an "investigating" committee -- but not to a "trial" committee-- the question arises whether the committee exceeded its authority in purporting to conduct a trial and find the accused guilty, then recommend a penalty -- as opposed to simply recommending a resolution preferring charges (see pp. 658-63). Even if a resolution preferring charges recommended by the committee included provision for a trial committee, the assembly would have been free to amend it so that the trial would be conducted before the full assembly.

Do the bylaws instead specifically require that disciplinary trials be held before a trial committee? If not, did the assembly vote to have such a committee conduct the trial? If neither of these are the case, the assembly need not accept any of the committee's findings, but may proceed -- having received the report of the committee -- to adopt its own resolution preferring charges and conduct its own trial, in accordance with the other provisions in RONR (see pp. 663-68) -- to the extent not inconsistent with any superseding provisions in the bylaws.

[Guest Mark]

Guest Mark, I have been somewhat hazy on exactly what your organization’s procedures are: hence some misunderstanding, and some of my questions. Is there a Disciplinary Committee, and if so, what do the bylaws direct it to do? Apparently, it already held the trial; and J. J., at least, is of the opinion that the trial can’t be done over at this point, even if you want to assign the second trial to a different committee or to the membership assembly.

[...]

What I’m guessing now is that the organization is using RONR’s disciplinary procedures as a basic structure, with only a few of its own modifications. ( -- Sean, is that what you meant?)

So as things stand now, it looks to me as if the organization is stuck with imposing the lenient penalty recommended by the trial committee (whoever they are). Or you might try to start the whole disciplinary procedure over from scratch: J. J. thinks you can; I’m not so sure.

I apologize for not making it clearer. To start, the bylaws only state that a "Judicial Committee" exists, and its job is to review reports and make recommendations to the assembly. Since the bylaws don't state much else considering procedure, we follow RONR.

The problem we have is that the Committee is indeed as you said, friends with the Margaret. As a result, the only penalty they are recommending is basically a slap on the wrist and "Not to do it again". However, majority of the assembly (Exactly 2/3rds) know that his actions and guilt warrant a penalty of removal from office. And when the recommendation is finally introduced to the assembly it will definitely be rejected.

Therefore, my main question is what happens next (since the same members are now furious at the turn of events and evident corruption, they are adamant in removing Margaret from office). Once the recommendation is rejected by the assembly, will the charges simply float around?

Are you saying that the assembly wants to reject the recommendation because the recommended penalty is not severe enough?

Yes, they feel that the recommendation of the committee was bias, and not severe enough.

The only limitation I see on the assembly is that they cannot increase a penalty after the finding of guilt. I cannot address your bylaw requirement, but there is nothing in RONR to prevent identical charges from being filed again and process to start again.

The problem remains, it might have to go back to the same committee.

I assumed this is the case, that at the end of the day, the process must start again. However, it's a problem since it's the same people in the committee. Which is why the accused member was so confident despite knowing his guilt.

This is why I brought up the topic of the "Trial by Society" vs. "Trial by Committee". Because the Bylaws states that our disciplinary committee is indeed the investigative committee, but not necessarily the trial committee as well. Therefore, I feel that it could've really gone either way but was decided by the chairperson of that committee to make it a "Trial by Committee", thus giving them the power to make the recommendation. So I was thinking up of a motion to at least make it so that the Society are the ones who make the recommendation, and not the committee, Something a long the lines of "I move that the Society be given the power to establish and vote on a recommendation of penalty, in place of the disciplinary committee." I'd like to know if that is out of order (It doesn't state anywhere in the bylaws that the Disciplinary Committee is the one to decide whether it is trial by society or trial by committee, and it's not a motion to directly remove anyone from office, but would this violate some kind of procedural law?).In the end, all I really want is to find someway to make it so that the entirety of the assembly decides the punishment, and not just handful of the members who happen to be friends with the member accused.

Anyways, I know I sound like a broken record by saying thanks a million times, but I really do appreciate everyone's feedback and patience with a novice such as myself. I'm new to this world of politics, and I really didn't know where to start. I witnessed for myself a blatant abuse of power, and so I decided to act and immediately purchased RONR 11th ed. It's really overwhelming for a first timer such as myself, but I believe in justice served. So again, I'd like to express my gratitude to a really awesome community.

[Guest Mark]

An "investigative committee" and a "trial committee" are two different entities under RONR. The investigative committee makes recommendations regarding whether the accused should be exonerated or whether a resolution preferring charges should be adopted. RONR specifically says that "If the investigating committee submits a report that does not recommend preferral of charges, it is within the power of the assembly nevertheless to adopt a resolution that does prefer charges" (p. 658n).

I think that's one of the problems we're having. Our "Disciplinary Committee" is rather vague, and states the following as far as its responsibilities go:

"The Judicial Committee shall review and make recommendations to the Executive Board, and to the Director of Student life regarding the resolution of situations brought before the committee."

It doesn't directly state anywhere whether it is an "Investigative" committee that prefers the charges, or the "Trial" committee that holds the trial in place of the assembly. The chairperson of that committee basically decided that it was both. Although I suppose "make recommendations to the executive board regarding he resolution of situations", could be interpreted as trial committee. Which is what I'm essentially trying to argue, if possible, (Be it through logic/RONR, or through a motion) for it be a trial by assembly.

In order for the trial on the charges to be held before a "trial committee," the resolution preferring charges must provide for that (see p. 661). it is true that once the trial has taken place before the trial committee, "The assembly cannot impose a penalty if the trial committee has found the accused not guilty." RONR (11th ed.), p. 669, ll. 6-8.

The supposed "Trial Committee" made a resolution that although the accused was guilty, it wasn't enough for removal from office. However, the majority feel that it a bias decision. Hence, the problem.

Of course, whatever the bylaws say trump what RONR says -- but, if RONR is the adopted parliamentary authority, its rules are followed where the bylaws are silent. If, as the quote above from the question suggests, the bylaws refer to an "investigating" committee -- but not to a "trial" committee-- the question arises whether the committee exceeded its authority in purporting to conduct a trial and find the accused guilty, then recommend a penalty -- as opposed to simply recommending a resolution preferring charges (see pp. 658-63). Even if a resolution preferring charges recommended by the committee included provision for a trial committee, the assembly would have been free to amend it so that the trial would be conducted before the full assembly.

This is exactly what I needed to hear. I think the description of the Judicial Committee in our bylaws describe it as an investigative committee, but it could also be interpreted as trial committee. However, since there is no specific line stating that it is a trial committee, the assembly should have the power to deem that the committee has exceeded its authority.

Do the bylaws instead specifically require that disciplinary trials be held before a trial committee? If not, did the assembly vote to have such a committee conduct the trial? If neither of these are the case, the assembly need not accept any of the committee's findings, but may proceed -- having received the report of the committee -- to adopt its own resolution preferring charges and conduct its own trial, in accordance with the other provisions in RONR (see pp. 663-68) -- to the extent not inconsistent with any superseding provisions in the bylaws.

The bylaws doesn't require specifically that disciplinary trials be held before a trial committee. Furthermore, the assembly did not indeed vote on the committee to conduct the trial. So, neither of the cases are true! Thanks, I believe that with this I have a good idea now how to approach the issue.

[Josh Martin]

I think that's one of the problems we're having. Our "Disciplinary Committee" is rather vague, and states the following as far as its responsibilities go:

"The Judicial Committee shall review and make recommendations to the Executive Board, and to the Director of Student life regarding the resolution of situations brought before the committee."

I had a feeling this was a student government.

In any event, we can't interpret your vague Bylaws here - that's up to the assembly. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

I do have two questions, though... is the "body" that you've been talking about throughout your posts the Executive Board? And do your Bylaws say what happens after the committee makes its recommendations? I ask the latter question especially since the recommendation goes to two different places.

This is exactly what I needed to hear. I think the description of the Judicial Committee in our bylaws describe it as an investigative committee, but it could also be interpreted as trial committee. However, since there is no specific line stating that it is a trial committee, the assembly should have the power to deem that the committee has exceeded its authority.

The assembly is indeed the interpreter of ambiguous provisions in its Bylaws.