Cheating member asked to leave group, member threatening lawsuit

[Guest Robert]

I am in a strictly social group. We have an elected Executive Board that was approached by members because one of our at-large members has been caught cheating in a games group. Our Executive Board investigated this and three of our members found the allegations to be true. We have since banned the cheating member from playing in these game groups. That member has now threatened a lawsuit. Our Bylaws have no provision in how to handle this. The Board felt that the member was not in good standing since these allegations turned out to be true. Our Bylaws state that, when no provisions have been made for something, we are to refer to Robert's Rules of Order. Is there anything in that document that would protect our Board from a lawsuit? Thank you for your time.

[jstackpo]

Unfortunately (for you, anyway) RONR doesn't deal with lawsuits and the like. For the most part (except for Chapter 20) it assumes folks want to behave properly and tells them HOW to behave properly. And that is in meetings, not at Poker Tables.

The "good standing" business depends on your bylaws - do they define what "good standing", or conversely, what "bad standing" is? And what are the consequences of being in bad standing might be? If not, then invoking the idea puts you on shaky ground.

In Good Standing:

RONR/11 defines the term "member in good standing" on p. 6 in the footnote as referring to a member whose membership rights are not in suspension, either as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings (Chapter XX) or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws of the organization.

So if you use the phrase "in good standing" in the bylaws, be sure to define exactly what you mean: what causes a member not to be in good standing, what he has to do to get back into the good graces of the association, &c. Also, you should specify which membership rights, duties, privileges, &c. are lost or suspended (or retained) by a member as a consequence of his being in "bad standing" as distinct from his being in good standing or ceasing to be a member at all.

Cheating at gaming tables is a legal issue, I suspect

[Guest Guest]

Thank you very much for your help with this. I appreciate your time.

[Gary c Tesser]

If Guest Guest, or Guest Robert, or Dr Stackpole, or anyone else is interested, now four days later, I have some pertinent thoughts.

[jstackpo]

Always.

[Trina]

If Guest Guest, or Guest Robert, or Dr Stackpole, or anyone else is interested, now four days later, I have some pertinent thoughts.

Holding up hand...

[David A Foulkes]

If Guest Guest, or Guest Robert, or Dr Stackpole, or anyone else is interested, now four days later, I have some pertinent thoughts.

Shameless plea for attention. You gonna wait four more to post 'em? Ahh, the impertinence.

[Tim Wynn]

I am in a strictly social group. We have an elected Executive Board that was approached by members because one of our at-large members has been caught cheating in a games group. Our Executive Board investigated this and three of our members found the allegations to be true. We have since banned the cheating member from playing in these game groups. That member has now threatened a lawsuit. Our Bylaws have no provision in how to handle this. The Board felt that the member was not in good standing since these allegations turned out to be true. Our Bylaws state that, when no provisions have been made for something, we are to refer to Robert's Rules of Order. Is there anything in that document that would protect our Board from a lawsuit? Thank you for your time.

RONR is a set of rules for deliberative assemblies, not for participation in games or other such activities of the organization.

RONR doesn't give a board the authority to deem a member "not in good standing."

If the organization wants to expel the member, follow the procedures in Chapter XX.

As for the THREAT of any proposed action, I would wait until that egg hatches before counting it. That usually defuses a game of chicken.

[Tim Wynn]

If Guest Guest, or Guest Robert, or Dr Stackpole, or anyone else is interested, now four days later, I have some pertinent thoughts.

Sounds like a bluff.

[Guest Edgar]

If Guest Guest, or Guest Robert, or Dr Stackpole, or anyone else is interested, now four days later, I have some pertinent thoughts.

They say there's a first time for everything.

[Gary c Tesser]

My apologies for the delay.

It seems to me that RONR’s emphatic concern with the “rights of the accused” and “due process” in Chapter Twenty (“XX,” for those who like Mexican beer with their disciplinary procedures ), “Disciplinary Procedures,” serve not only “the demands of justice” (formerly the last four words on p. 288) but also to protect the society from reprisal against it for unfairly treating the accused. Accordingly, any disciplinary procedures in the bylaws of Guest Robert’s social group should be strictly followed. If there aren’t any, then the procedures in Chapter Twenty should be followed, as Mr Wynn said. (I can’t tell from Guest Robert’s description whether this was done.) If any of this was not done, I think that all the punitive actions (like the banning of the “cheating member from playing in these game groups”), however well-intentioned and with full attention to fairness, should be rescinded, and the group then enact whatever discipline it thinks appropriate, following its explicit rules.