Disciplinary Special Meeting Notice

[J. J.]

This is a bit related to George's question.

The society is planning to hold a trial of member Doe at a special meeting. It will be preferring two charges with three specifications each against Doe. The notice of the meeting will include the time (more than 60 days from the notice being sent in this case) and place of the meeting. What should be in the notice regarding the purpose of the meeting?

Should it just be that there will be a meeting for disciplinary action? Should it be that member Doe will be facing disciplinary action? Should it specify the charges? Should it specify the charges and specifications? Should it include something else?

[Guest Edgar]

What should be in the notice regarding the purpose of the meeting?

Should it just be that there will be a meeting for disciplinary action? Should it be that member Doe will be facing disciplinary action? Should it specify the charges? Should it specify the charges and specifications? Should it include something else?

I would think the notice should be only as specific as needed so that a member can make an informed decision whether to attend or not. Certainly, I would think, it would include the name of the accused and the charges being preferred as both would significantly affect my decision to attend.

I would think that anything more specific would be more properly dealt with at the meeting itself.

[J. J.]

I would think the notice should be only as specific as needed so that a member can make an informed decision whether to attend or not. Certainly, I would think, it would include the name of the accused and the charges being preferred as both would significantly affect my decision to attend.

I would think that anything more specific would be more properly dealt with at the meeting itself.

Well, the actual motion for a non disciplinary special meeting would not have to be included in the notice (p. 93). A special meeting (where permitted in the bylaws) to invest money could include a motion to invest in stock or put money in a CD. The notice might be a special meeting might be simply, "to invest money."

Suppose that this special meeting is to hear the charges and adopt a resolution (p. 660). Ten days after the special meeting is set, but 50 days prior to the meeting, the investigating committee finds a third charge with two specification. Would that require additional notice?

Could the notice be "to consider charges regarding member Doe?"

[Guest Edgar]

Could the notice be "to consider charges regarding member Doe?"

I think that's too vague, especially when the specific charges are known. Barring considerations of confidentiality, I don't like the idea that the people calling the meeting know something they're not telling the people they're asking to attend the meeting. It smacks of teasing.

On the other hand, if a special meeting is called for the purpose of considering disciplinary action against John Doe for smoking in the boys' room, you can't, without further notice, consider the fact that Mr. Doe also burned down the clubhouse. Or that Jane Roe was smoking in the girls' room.

But these are "should" questions whose answers depend on specific circumstances so I'm not sure you're going to able to formulate an iron-clad rule.

[J. J.]

I think that's too vague, especially when the specific charges are known. Barring considerations of confidentiality, I don't like the idea that the people calling the meeting know something they're not telling the people they're asking to attend the meeting. It smacks of teasing.

The specific charges are not known. The assembly voted on the resolution at the regular meeting to investigate Doe, and set a special meeting. The committee might find no grounds for charges. When the report is read, another committe could be appointed to investigate.

I'm not sure where the "anti-teasing rule" is RONR.

[Guest Edgar]

Should it specify the charges and specifications?

The specific charges are not known.

Are you changing the parameters of this hypothetical situation?

I'm not sure where the "anti-teasing rule" is RONR.

it's just common courtesy.

[J. J.]

Are you changing the parameters of this hypothetical situation?

A bit, but a broad notice would cover both situations.

it's just common courtesy.

Which has nothing to do with RONR.

[Sean Hunt]

It stands to reason (although not necessarily to the rules, perhaps) that as long as the timeframe for notice is met, business could be added to a special meeting's agenda rather than (awkwardly) scheduling a second special meeting for "right after the previous one". In a similarly reasonable case,

As for what the notice /should/ contain, I think it would vary depending on the circumstances. At the very least, a general outline of the charges should be provided, and where there are not confidentiality concerns, I would include as much information as possible. Confidentiality (to non-members) is the only reason I can think of not to provide a member with as much information as is possible up front.

[Burke Balch]

The specific charges are not known. The assembly voted on the resolution at the regular meeting to investigate Doe, and set a special meeting. The committee might find no grounds for charges. When the report is read, another committe could be appointed to investigate.

If the facts are as described, the assembly is evidently not following RONR. Under RONR (11th ed.), the assembly cannot adopt a single resolution that both directs investigation of Doe and sets a special meeting to try Doe. Rather, the assembly must, at one meeting, adopt a resolution appointing an investigating committee (pp. 656-57). Then at a subsequent meeting, normally based on the investigating committee's report (for exceptions see n. on pp. 658-59), the assembly can adopt a resolution that prefers charges (including specifications) and sets a special meeting for the trial (pp. 658-63). So the specific charges would be known when the special meeting was set.

[J. J.]

If the facts are as described, the assembly is evidently not following RONR. Under RONR (11th ed.), the assembly cannot adopt a single resolution that both directs investigation of Doe and sets a special meeting to try Doe. Rather, the assembly must, at one meeting, adopt a resolution appointing an investigating committee (pp. 656-57). Then at a subsequent meeting, normally based on the investigating committee's report (for exceptions see n. on pp. 658-59), the assembly can adopt a resolution that prefers charges (including specifications) and sets a special meeting for the trial (pp. 658-63). So the specific charges would be known when the special meeting was set.

I am talking potentially either case.

In the first case, the assembly calls a special meeting to hear the report of the investigating committee; that may lead to a trial. Looking at the footnote on p. 661, that may be out of order.

In the second case, the assembly calls a special meeting to try a member (or potentially a nonmember officer) after charges have been preferred.

My question is, what specificity is needed in the notice, in either case (assuming the first case is in order). Focusing on the second case, would the notice:

1. State that the purpose of this meeting is a trial.

2. State that the purpose of this meeting is the trial of member Doe.

3. State that the purpose of this meeting is the trial of member Doe on the specific charges/specifications. Doe, of course, would receive the formal notice of the charges separately.

[Burke Balch]

I am talking potentially either case.

In the first case, the assembly calls a special meeting to hear the report of the investigating committee; that may lead to a trial. Looking at the footnote on p. 661, that may be out of order.

In the second case, the assembly calls a special meeting to try a member (or potentially a nonmember officer) after charges have been preferred.

My question is, what specificity is needed in the notice, in either case (assuming the first case is in order). Focusing on the second case, would the notice:

1. State that the purpose of this meeting is a trial.

2. State that the purpose of this meeting is the trial of member Doe.

3. State that the purpose of this meeting is the trial of member Doe on the specific charges/specifications. Doe, of course, would receive the formal notice of the charges separately.

What is required is notice "clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up." RONR (11th) ed., p. 91, ll. 32-33. I cannot imagine that either (1) or (2) would meet that standard. As to the degree of specificity needed in number (3), all that can be concluded from the language in RONR is that the exact language of the motion to be brought up need not be given, but that its "subject matter" must be given "clearly and specifically." Whether a particular notice was adequate would depend on the facts of each case -- the principle being that members must know enough about what is to come up to be able intelligently to decide whether they care enough to attend. I don't believe that one can derive from the language in RONR any general rule such as that "charges must be given but not specifications" or the like.

[J. J.]

I can very easily see number 2 meeting that standard. I know that member Doe will be facing a trial, and that if Doe is found guilty in the trial, he would penalties, including expulsion. I will know that Doe will have to face specific charges, that will be specified and have to be proven.

If I have a general opinion of Doe, he’s a great guy or he’s a horrible person, I can attend. If I have concerns that Doe’s due process rights are being violated, I can attend. Ultimately, if I have concerns that something should not rise to the level of disciplinary action, I can attend (though that would more be appropriately raised at the time the charges are adopted).

I could draw an analogy with special meeting notice for this purpose, “to consider the purchase and donation of books to public libraries.” The notice could permit motion, “that the society purchase, for a sum not to exceed $60, and donate copies of Atlas Shrugged to the public library in Town A and Town B.” The notice would also permit the motion, “that the society purchase, for a sum not to exceed $1000, and donate copies of Parliamentary Law to the libraries of City Z.”

If I have concerns about the cost, what books are being purchased, and to what libraries the books are going, I can attend.

[Guest Edgar]

I could draw an analogy with special meeting notice for this purpose, “to consider the purchase and donation of books to public libraries.” The notice could permit motion, “that the society purchase, for a sum not to exceed $60, and donate copies of Atlas Shrugged to the public library in Town A and Town B.” The notice would also permit the motion, “that the society purchase, for a sum not to exceed $1000, and donate copies of Parliamentary Law to the libraries of City Z.”

If I have concerns about the cost, what books are being purchased, and to what libraries the books are going, I can attend.

But if the person proposing the motion has no intention that the society should spend more than $100, then that information should be included in the notice. Then, if spending that amount of money on books doesn't concern you, you can stay home.

My point being that there's no need to be unnecessarily broad if the specifics are known. It's not only common courtesy (as previously mentioned), it's good politics. If your primary concern is spending too much money, I'd rather alleviate your fears and have you stay home rather than attend (because no limit was placed on the expense) and then end up arguing over which books to donate.

[J. J.]

But if the person proposing the motion has no intention that the society should spend more than $100, then that information should be included in the notice. Then, if spending that amount of money on books doesn't concern you, you can stay home.

The proposer may not have set an amount. The proposer might aboulutely hate Ayn Rand, for that matter.

My point being that there's no need to be unnecessarily broad if the specifics are known. It's not only common courtesy (as previously mentioned), it's good politics. If your primary concern is spending too much money, I'd rather alleviate your fears and have you stay home rather than attend (because no limit was placed on the expense) and then end up arguing over which books to donate.

In terms of politics, it might be very bad politics to spread the specific nature of the charges outside of the assembly (or that Doe is facing a trial, for that matter). In terms of the charges, if you care about them (and the assembly is acting correctly), you can attend that special meeting. In theory, you could ask to view the the minutes (or draft minutes) of the meeting that adopted the charges.

[Guest Jerry]

Under Roberts Rules, is there a time-frame as to how much time there must be before the notice of a trial and when the trial is to be held?

[Burke Balch]

I can very easily see number 2 meeting that standard. I know that member Doe will be facing a trial, and that if Doe is found guilty in the trial, he would penalties, including expulsion. I will know that Doe will have to face specific charges, that will be specified and have to be proven.

.

The matter is a factual question on which debate, I suppose, could go back and forth forever. Were I the parliamentarian, I would advise the chair that a special meeting notice that said no more about what would be considered than that "John Doe will be tried," with no indication whatever of the charges, plainly would fall beneath the standard of "clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up," RONR (11th ed.), p. 91, ll. 32-34. I would warn that if the organization went forward and John Doe, having been convicted, raised the argument in litigation against the organization that the special meeting at which he was tried was conducted with inadequate notice, he would probably be able to get parliamentarians to testify as expert witnesses to that effect. He might well claim that the possibility exists that had there been proper notice, additional members might have attended who could have voted for acquittal. For the protection of the organization, therefore, I would strongly urge erring on the side of caution and including at least the charges, if not the specifications, in the notice.

The concern that providing members with a specific notice could involve the danger of the charges becoming known outside the organization fails to recognize that such a danger exists in any case since 1) any member who attended either the meeting at which the resolution bringing charges was adopted or the meeting at which the trial was conducted would know them and 2) any member has the right to inspect the minutes of the executive session conducted at either meeting, RONR (11th ed.), p. 460, ll. 13-15. A more appropriate way to guard against that danger might be to include with the notice of the special meeting a warning that it contains information concerning matters considered in executive session and a reminder of the duties of members not to violate that secrecy under pain of undergoing disciplinary procedures themselves, RONR (11th ed.), p. 96, ll. 6-7.

Under Roberts Rules, is there a time-frame as to how much time there must be before the notice of a trial and when the trial is to be held?

"With reference to an appropriate date for which to set the trial, thirty days is a reasonable time to allow the accused to prepare his defense." RONR (11th ed.), p. 660, ll. 26-28. Of course, if the bylaws require a longer notice period for a special meeting, it is necessary to comply with that requirement.

[J. J.]

Under Roberts Rules, is there a time-frame as to how much time there must be before the notice of a trial and when the trial is to be held?

RONR notes that 30 days is a "reasonable time" for the accused to be notified (p. 660, ll. 26-28). Outside of the context of a special meeting, no specific notice is required for the members.

[Burke Balch]

I should be clear that in my immediately previous post I did not mean to change my view that "I don't believe that one can derive from the language in RONR any general rule such as that 'charges must be given but not specifications' or the like." I indicated what I would recommend for the protection of the organization. What is clear, at least to me, is that providing NO information whatever about the charges, and simply stating that John Doe would be tried, would fall below the RONR standard.

[J. J.]

The matter is a factual question on which debate, I suppose, could go back and forth forever. Were I the parliamentarian, I would advise the chair that a special meeting notice that said no more about what would be considered than that "John Doe will be tried," with no indication whatever of the charges, plainly would fall beneath the standard of "clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up," RONR (11th ed.), p. 91, ll. 32-34.

Well, I'm not sure I'd agree. The notice, and I'll refine it a bit, "That there be a a trial for the expulsion of Doe," does clearly and specifically" say what the assembly will be doing, but not why it is doing it. The charges and/or specifications go to the why part. That would be my first concern, and would be to general notice requirements for special meetings, without regard to this being a disciplinary action.

The assembly declining to send out the charges would not prevent Doe from sending out the charges, or Doe from calling his friends in the society. Doe could also request that these charges be sent out to all members, if it is an issue. I would certainly recommend that, if Doe made such a request, it be granted.

The concern that providing members with a specific notice could involve the danger of the charges becoming known outside the organization fails to recognize that such a danger exists in any case since 1) any member who attended either the meeting at which the resolution bringing charges was adopted or the meeting at which the trial was conducted would know them and 2) any member has the right to inspect the minutes of the executive session conducted at either meeting, RONR (11th ed.), p. 460, ll. 13-15. A more appropriate way to guard against that danger might be to include with the notice of the special meeting a warning that it contains information concerning matters considered in executive session and a reminder of the duties of members not to violate that secrecy under pain of undergoing disciplinary procedures themselves, RONR (11th ed.), p. 96, ll. 6-7.

This is also a major concern. While the assembly can control what happens in a meeting, I am not entirely clear that this would apply to what happened outside of a meeting, when an absent member receives his notice.

Another is the accidental release. The member leave the notice on his desk and someone else reads it. His nonmember secretary (or wife) opens his mail. The member tosses the notice into the trash, and someone fishes it out.

The problem I have here is that assembly has, properly, done something in executive session and then released what they did outside of the control of that organization.

I hope this is something addressed in the 12 edition.

[Guest Edgar]

The notice, and I'll refine it a bit, "That there be a a trial for the expulsion of Doe," does clearly and specifically" say what the assembly will be doing, but not why it is doing it. The charges and/or specifications go to the why part. . . .

Another is the accidental release. The member leave the notice on his desk and someone else reads it. His nonmember secretary (or wife) opens his mail. The member tosses the notice into the trash, and someone fishes it out.

I'm sympathetic to the need for confidentiality but I'm (still) troubled by the idea that those sending notice of the special meeting are withholding essential information from the members they're asking to attend. It's as if they're saying, "We know why this special meeting is so important but we don't trust you enough to tell you."

[J. J.]

I'm sympathetic to the need for confidentiality but I'm (still) troubled by the idea that those sending notice of the special meeting are withholding essential information from the members they're asking to attend. It's as if they're saying, "We know why this special meeting is so important but we don't trust you enough to tell you."

That could conceivably be the case with any number of motions, at a special meeting.

Notice would not need to include the actual content of motions (p. 93, ll. 15-18). For example, a special meeting could be called "for the purpose of endorsing James Thornton for the office of United States Senator." That would permit.

A. A straight forward motion, "That the Society endorse James Thornton for United States Senate."

B. A resolution, "Resolved, That the Society endorse James Thornton for United States Senate."

C A resolutation with a preamble:

"Whereas, ......;

Whereas, .....; and

Whearas, ........;

Resolved, That the Society endorse James Thornton for United States Senate."

The guy proposing this could any one of these in mind, but all should be okay, according to p. 93.

[J. J.]

I'm also wondering if there might be a due process right, which would take this issue off p. 93.