Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

membership instruction to board


Trina

Recommended Posts

After reading this recent thread:

http://robertsrules....nyorganization/

I have a question.

Suppose the bylaws of an organization give the board the authority to initiate a disciplinary process which could lead to termination of membership. The board is permitted to conduct an investigation on its own intiative, and to recommend termination to the general membership assembly. The general membership makes the final decision.

The board, for whatever reason, decides to investigate Mr. N, and at the conclusion of the investigation, makes a recommendation to the general membership that Mr. N's membership be terminated. At the next general membership meeting, the membership listens carefully to the board's recommendation, and eventually votes against a motion to terminate Mr. N's membership.

A month later, at the next general membership meeting, the board again recommends that Mr. N's membership be terminated (based on the same circumstances or evidence as the first time around). The membership again defeats a motion to terminate membership.

Several months later, the board trots out the same recommendation again. Many in the general membership are getting tired of this repeated exercise. Can the general membership direct the board not to make this identical recommendation, based on the identical evidence, again in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading this recent thread:

http://robertsrules....nyorganization/

I have a question.

Suppose the bylaws of an organization give the board the authority to initiate a disciplinary process which could lead to termination of membership. The board is permitted to conduct an investigation on its own intiative, and to recommend termination to the general membership assembly. The general membership makes the final decision.

The board, for whatever reason, decides to investigate Mr. N, and at the conclusion of the investigation, makes a recommendation to the general membership that Mr. N's membership be terminated. At the next general membership meeting, the membership listens carefully to the board's recommendation, and eventually votes against a motion to terminate Mr. N's membership.

A month later, at the next general membership meeting, the board again recommends that Mr. N's membership be terminated (based on the same circumstances or evidence as the first time around). The membership again defeats a motion to terminate membership.

Several months later, the board trots out the same recommendation again. Many in the general membership are getting tired of this repeated exercise. Can the general membership direct the board not to make this identical recommendation, based on the identical evidence, again in the future?

It appears that in your scenario, the bylaws authorize the board to undertake such an investigation and to make such a recommendation. Therefore, the assembly of the society would need to amend the bylaws in order to remove that authority from the board.

However, since it's just a recommendation, it can be dealt with swiftly, especially if two thirds of the assembly are opposed to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think not -- the defeated "Throw the bum out" motion can be renewed indefinitely.

I guess that could go on until Mr. N's friends (and perhaps Mr. N himself) get elected to the board and defeats the Board's motion, in a Board meeting, to "recommend expulsion" to the general membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't really disagree with the above comments, but...

... hasn't the membership "decided" the issue, and isn't the board acting contrary to the will of the assembly by continuing to bring the same recommendation, presuming no additional evidence has been considered?

It might be argued that the bylaws give th board the power to initiate discipline, but in this case it has already initiated it. Re-initiating it, on the basis of no additional evidence, could be viewed as dilatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Can the general membership direct the board not to make this identical recommendation, based on the identical evidence, again in the future?

My first thought was that the answer was 'no' -- since the description of the disciplinary process in the hypothetical bylaws gives the board the authority to investigate, and to recommend expulsion based on the outcome of the investigation. And we all know a defeated motion can be renewed ad nauseam.

However, there are a couple of things that bother me. First, this isn't the case of a single (possible eccentric) member exercising his right to make his pet motion over again at each meeting. The board is supposed to be a responsible servant of the organization, and it is also subordinate (in this hypothetical organization anyway) to the general membership... individual members (including the eccentric ones) are not subordinate to the general membership in the same way.

Also, since this is a case of disciplinary action, it doesn't seem right to re-initiate (using Mr. Novosielski's term) the exact same disciplinary action, with no additional evidence, which the general membership has already ruled on. I don't see anything about 'double jeopardy' in RONR; just the general admonition (RONR 11th ed. p. 656 l. 6) that the accused has the right 'to be fairly treated.' Telling the general membership, at every meeting, that Mr. N should be thrown out seems different (to me anyway) than telling the general membership, at every meeting, that the board recommends painting the conference room walls chartreuse (one of those colors I can never quite get a grasp on...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first thought was that the answer was 'no' -- since the description of the disciplinary process in the hypothetical bylaws gives the board the authority to investigate, and to recommend expulsion based on the outcome of the investigation. And we all know a defeated motion can be renewed ad nauseam.

However, there are a couple of things that bother me. First, this isn't the case of a single (possible eccentric) member exercising his right to make his pet motion over again at each meeting. The board is supposed to be a responsible servant of the organization, and it is also subordinate (in this hypothetical organization anyway) to the general membership... individual members (including the eccentric ones) are not subordinate to the general membership in the same way.

Also, since this is a case of disciplinary action, it doesn't seem right to re-initiate (using Mr. Novosielski's term) the exact same disciplinary action, with no additional evidence, which the general membership has already ruled on. I don't see anything about 'double jeopardy' in RONR; just the general admonition (RONR 11th ed. p. 656 l. 6) that the accused has the right 'to be fairly treated.' Telling the general membership, at every meeting, that Mr. N should be thrown out seems different (to me anyway) than telling the general membership, at every meeting, that the board recommends painting the conference room walls chartreuse (one of those colors I can never quite get a grasp on...).

If this is how the members of Hypotheria feel, they should amend the bylaws. From the details given, I'm not seeing a violation of the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that in your scenario, the bylaws authorize the board to undertake such an investigation and to make such a recommendation. Therefore, the assembly of the society would need to amend the bylaws in order to remove that authority from the board.

However, since it's just a recommendation, it can be dealt with swiftly, especially if two thirds of the assembly are opposed to it.

I would think not -- the defeated "Throw the bum out" motion can be renewed indefinitely.

I guess that could go on until Mr. N's friends (and perhaps Mr. N himself) get elected to the board and defeats the Board's motion, in a Board meeting, to "recommend expulsion" to the general membership.

Now hold on here... RONR states that the general membership can give a board instructions in all cases except when the board has exclusive authority. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 483, lines 9-12) If the Bylaws only grant the board the authority to make a recommendation on a subject, that doesn't sound very exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now hold on here... RONR states that the general membership can give a board instructions in all cases except when the board has exclusive authority. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 483, lines 9-12) If the Bylaws only grant the board the authority to make a recommendation on a subject, that doesn't sound very exclusive.

Are you suggesting that the assembly can make a recommendation to itself? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying the board does not have exclusive authority to expel members from the society, and therefore, the board is compelled to follow the society's instructions in this area.

What bothers me is that (and here's where we get into trouble with hypotheticals) the board can clearly make a recommendation without a specific authorization in the bylaws, so it is presumed that there must be some reason for the inclusion of the provision (p. 589, l. 34 - p. 590, l. 1). I have a tendency to think occasionally such things are included in the bylaws with the intention of giving the board exclusive authority. After all, it's the authority to make a recommendation, and it doesn't make sense for the assembly to make a recommendation to itself.

Fortunately, we have the sole drafter of the bylaws at our disposal; maybe she can shed some light on it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What bothers me is that (and here's where we get into trouble with hypotheticals) the board can clearly make a recommendation without a specific authorization in the bylaws, so it is presumed that there must be some reason for the inclusion of the provision (p. 589, l. 34 - p. 590, l. 1). I have a tendency to think occasionally such things are included in the bylaws with the intention of giving the board exclusive authority. After all, it's the authority to make a recommendation, and it doesn't make sense for the assembly to make a recommendation to itself.

If the Bylaws require a recommendation from the board before taking such action, the assembly couldn't expel a member on its own, but I don't see why the membership couldn't instruct the board to not make a recommendation on expulsion in a particular case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Bylaws require a recommendation from the board before taking such action, the assembly couldn't expel a member on its own, but I don't see why the membership couldn't instruct the board to not make a recommendation on expulsion in a particular case.

Might be me, but I didn't read it that the only means of expelling a member is through Board recommendation only. The Board can initiate an investigation, and ultimately recommend expulsion to the membership, but I took it that the membership retains the authority to discipline members as well, without of course Board approval. Board recommendation is one method, not the only one. Hypothetically speaking. But I haven't read the bylaws, so...............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What bothers me is that (and here's where we get into trouble with hypotheticals) the board can clearly make a recommendation without a specific authorization in the bylaws, so it is presumed that there must be some reason for the inclusion of the provision (p. 589, l. 34 - p. 590, l. 1). I have a tendency to think occasionally such things are included in the bylaws with the intention of giving the board exclusive authority. After all, it's the authority to make a recommendation, and it doesn't make sense for the assembly to make a recommendation to itself.

Fortunately, we have the sole drafter of the bylaws at our disposal; maybe she can shed some light on it. :)

Let's say the drafters of the bylaws did envision this as the normal disciplinary process in the society -- i.e. that the board initiates the process, and makes a recommendation (if appropriate at the conclusion of the investigation), and the general membership then votes on the question of expulsion. However, the drafters also said to themselves, "hey, wait a minute, this might not always work, for example, if the problem member is also a board member... so we'll make it clear that this isn't the only way to expel a member." They don't want to specify details, but just put in something like:

"The general membership also retains its right to remove a member of the society, as described in the parliamentary authority adopted by the society."

The board is specifically given the authority to initiate an investigation and to make a recommendation, because that is intended to be the normal (but not exclusive) process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Because such a motion, if adopted, would be contrary to the bylaws in that it would (attempt to) deprive the Board of a right or power granted to it in the bylaws. Motion nullified via p. 251.

I don't see how this really deprives the board of its powers. If the board is simply given the power to make a recommendation, and the assembly must approve the recommendation for it to become the act of the society, that's not much of a power at all. The final decision-making authority rests with the society. If the recommendation must come from the board, the society could not circumvent this, but it seems to me that the society can certainly insist that the board cease making recommendations to expel a certain member.

If we want to look at it another way, it's like the society is rejecting the board's recommendation in advance.

Might be me, but I didn't read it that the only means of expelling a member is through Board recommendation only. The Board can initiate an investigation, and ultimately recommend expulsion to the membership, but I took it that the membership retains the authority to discipline members as well, without of course Board approval. Board recommendation is one method, not the only one. Hypothetically speaking. But I haven't read the bylaws, so...............

Well, if that's true, then there's definitely no reason that the society couldn't instruct the board on this.

Let's say the drafters of the bylaws did envision this as the normal disciplinary process in the society -- i.e. that the board initiates the process, and makes a recommendation (if appropriate at the conclusion of the investigation), and the general membership then votes on the question of expulsion. However, the drafters also said to themselves, "hey, wait a minute, this might not always work, for example, if the problem member is also a board member... so we'll make it clear that this isn't the only way to expel a member." They don't want to specify details, but just put in something like:

"The general membership also retains its right to remove a member of the society, as described in the parliamentary authority adopted by the society."

The board is specifically given the authority to initiate an investigation and to make a recommendation, because that is intended to be the normal (but not exclusive) process.

If this is the case, then the board clearly does not have exclusive authority, and therefore the society can give it instructions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...