CM1138 Posted November 10, 2011 at 02:22 AM Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 at 02:22 AM I have an unfortunate situation for a president nominee for our non-profit club. The nomination was legal and accepted after which, the Board took disciplinary action. Between the time the action was taken and the Hearing, ballots went out to the absentee voters and some were already received. The bylaws state that the member must be in good standing to serve on the board... and the appeal portion of the policy manual does not specify in this case what to do. The appeal process has not been started. Should the nominee be taken off the ballot? Should the voting be suspended until the appeal process is complete? Our policy that anything not specified will go by the Roberts Rules of Order. Is there anything that Roberts can provide for guidance here? The action taken was to remove the nominee and resend ballots to all absentees before the appeal is complete. There is no policy on that and I am trying to get some guidance on this issue.thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted November 10, 2011 at 02:31 AM Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 at 02:31 AM Do the bylaws define what "in good standing" means? If they don't RONR has a fairly limited definition of what it means and ultimately what disciplinary action was taken would determine whether the member is still in good standing and thus can serve on the Board. See the footnote on page 6 for the definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CM1138 Posted November 10, 2011 at 11:06 PM Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 at 11:06 PM The bylaws do not specifically define "in good standing" but the policy manual has a chapter on misconduct that has one line that states "Any conduct deemed detrimental to the best interests of the organization by a majority of the Board of Governors or a majority of the Board of Directors". The process of being "deemed detrimental" doesn't appear to me to be complete until the allowed appeal is complete with the final outcome. I'd expect this to apply if the nominee is found guilty by the primary board and after the appeal to the secondary authority (board of directors) has been decided. This is the area where we need some idea of guidance or clarification. One side believes the first ruling puts the individual out of the election but there is no rule on it specifically, another side believes the final determination must be made before removing the person from a ballot since the hearing process is not complete. The implication is very important since it is a presidential election. Thanks for any help with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 10, 2011 at 11:17 PM Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 at 11:17 PM One side believes the first ruling puts the individual out of the election but there is no rule on it specifically, another side believes the final determination must be made before removing the person from a ballot since the hearing process is not complete.Unfortunately, RONR doesn't provide much guidance on this issue either. RONR has no requirements for holding office, and there is no appeal process for disciplinary actions in RONR (since discipline is handled by the general membership). For that matter, absentee voting isn't even permitted unless it is authorized by the Bylaws. Thus, the situation you're describing is a result of your customized rules, and your organization will need to interpret those rules. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CM1138 Posted November 11, 2011 at 06:55 AM Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2011 at 06:55 AM thanks for the response, I will review and get back to the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frank Floyd Posted November 16, 2011 at 01:17 AM Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 at 01:17 AM I have a similar question in regards to this topic. If the bylaws state that any member may make charges against another member and be presented at a meeting, what is the members standing during the time between the meeting the charges are brought and the trial being held. The bylaws state the secretary will make notice to all active members of the hear date which will occur at the next regulary scheduled meeting(once a month). The hearing will be held and at the conclusion of the hearing the charges against the member and any discpline will be decided by 2/3rds of the membership. Does the 30 days in between meetings mean the member has no priveledges until the hearing is complete or does the member maintain their privledges until the discipline is decided. Members are stating that since there is nothing about the members status during this 30 day time, that it reverts to Robert's rules and therefore the member has no rights of membership aside from the hearing. I say Robert's rules doesn't apply in this case since the procedure states when the hearing will be held and that the disclipline will be decided at that time. Removing a members privledges would be a form of discipline in my opinion. Please help before this runs into lawsuit territory. The remaining few members seem to think they can interpret the by laws to meet their needs and thus the rules are not consistently followed. They've advised the acting president that he is suspended and they elected a new president that wasn't qualified after they claim his status was fine now when indeed he has met the criteria to be a member in good standing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 17, 2011 at 12:21 AM Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 at 12:21 AM Does the 30 days in between meetings mean the member has no priveledges until the hearing is complete or does the member maintain their privledges until the discipline is decided.In my opinion, the latter, unless something in the Bylaws suggests otherwise. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 658, line 30 - pg. 659, line 7.Members are stating that since there is nothing about the members status during this 30 day time, that it reverts to Robert's rules and therefore the member has no rights of membership aside from the hearing.Ah, I see they haven't picked up the new edition. RONR's treatment of this subject has changed. The suspension of rights is no longer automatic - if this is desired, the society must include it in the resolution preferring charges.I say Robert's rules doesn't apply in this case since the procedure states when the hearing will be held and that the disclipline will be decided at that time.Well, RONR actually helps your case, so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.