Guest Bob Posted February 16, 2012 at 09:12 AM Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 at 09:12 AM Non profit organization with board of seven.A motion is made and passed. Board Member June abstains from voting on the motion.June claims the motion was in violation to the bylaws and brings "charges" against Board Member Tom for a bylaws violation. She brings charges against Tom only, and no one else on the board.Is this allowed? Can Tom be charged alone for an action of the entire board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted February 16, 2012 at 12:12 PM Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 at 12:12 PM Nothing in RONR would prohibit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM Nothing in RONR would prohibit it.Ummm...Well, nothing in RONR permits an individual member to 'bring charges' against another member.That process would have to be defined in the bylaws. The disciplinary procedure in RONR is different. If the process of bringing charges is defined in the bylaws, I suppose there's nothing that keeps a member from applying the process unfairly (singling out poor Tom).Under RONR, the obvious way to deal with an adopted motion that is in violation of the bylaws is to raise a point of order about the fact that the motion is in violation of the bylaws (RONR 11th ed. p. 251 ( a ) ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted February 16, 2012 at 04:41 PM Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 at 04:41 PM I disagree with the discipline process application. Member June should have raised a Point of Order is she felt the motion was in violation of the By-laws. The only way the discipline process would work is if Member Tom was Chairing the meeting or the mover of the motion. Even then, going through the discipline process will not necessarily change any anything. Member June would still need to show that Member Tom did something worthy of discipline. Based on information provided there is no evidence that Member Tom did anything wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 17, 2012 at 01:41 AM Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 at 01:41 AM I disagree with the discipline process application. Member June should have raised a Point of Order is she felt the motion was in violation of the By-laws. The only way the discipline process would work is if Member Tom was Chairing the meeting or the mover of the motion. Even then, going through the discipline process will not necessarily change any anything. Member June would still need to show that Member Tom did something worthy of discipline. Based on information provided there is no evidence that Member Tom did anything wrong.If you're suggesting that some rule actually prevents the society from disciplining Member Tom in the situation described (as opposed to it simply being a bad idea), you'd better have a citation to back that up.If you're just saying that disciplining Tom based on the facts provided sounds like a bad idea, and that it would be preferable to simply raise a Point of Order about the motion, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted February 17, 2012 at 04:52 PM Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 at 04:52 PM If you're just saying that disciplining Tom based on the facts provided sounds like a bad idea, and that it would be preferable to simply raise a Point of Order about the motion, I agree.That is what I mean. A Point of Order is more preferable and reasonable that to discipline a single member. However, we still do not know Tom's involvement, so there might be a reasonable expectation that he would have known that this action was not in line with the By-laws. If not, then Tom really should not be the only person held accountable for the actions of a majority of members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.