Special Called Meeting for a complaint hearing against the Chairman

[Guest Guest]

A special called meeting, called within the by-laws and RR, of hearing complaints against the Chair, and giving the Chair the chance to defend himself. It is a called County Meeting.

I have just received re-Procedures for the Hearing today, however the called meeting is happening this Tuesday night. There are a couple of items that dictate otherwise in our by-laws and per RR we can move to suspend the rules. I just want to know that I am on the right track.

1.The Vice Chairman states, "As I am will be presiding over the hearing, here are the procedures. (By-laws, RR state that we can vote to suspend the rules and remove the chair for this meeting, and elect a temporary chair for the night. Using all RR on this procedure. To elect would not mean the Vice Chairman.

2.A witness list and all documentary evidence will be provided to me and to the opposing parties by the close of busess this Friday-which today is Saturday.

3.By previous mutual consent, no proxies will be permited. (our by-laws state otherwise, and RR states for absentee's are protected... tha tthe conclusion of the findings can be called null and void.No previous consent was discussed).

Apprectiate any insight!

[Tim Wynn]

A special called meeting, called within the by-laws and RR, of hearing complaints against the Chair, and giving the Chair the chance to defend himself. It is a called County Meeting.

I have just received re-Procedures for the Hearing today, however the called meeting is happening this Tuesday night. There are a couple of items that dictate otherwise in our by-laws and per RR we can move to suspend the rules. I just want to know that I am on the right track.

1.The Vice Chairman states, "As I am will be presiding over the hearing, here are the procedures. (By-laws, RR state that we can vote to suspend the rules and remove the chair for this meeting, and elect a temporary chair for the night. Using all RR on this procedure. To elect would not mean the Vice Chairman.

2.A witness list and all documentary evidence will be provided to me and to the opposing parties by the close of busess this Friday-which today is Saturday.

3.By previous mutual consent, no proxies will be permited. (our by-laws state otherwise, and RR states for absentee's are protected... tha tthe conclusion of the findings can be called null and void.No previous consent was discussed).

Apprectiate any insight!

A question might aid in the acquisition of an answer.

[Guest guest]

Questions on this subject:

1. When the chairman is the person that is being brought forth and a hearing, is the VC automatically deemed the Chairman for the hearing? If this is not outlined in RONR, and the county by-laws, is the State by-laws acceptable?

2. Receiving 1 buisness day in advance, emailed to the county members, the procedures and that the VC will be Chairman, is this enough time for the proper announcement?

3. When the chairman is on "trial" is that an automatic "yes" that he is to abstain from voting? When a vote for removing the chairman, does he need to leave the room? (State, County does not have this in the by-laws.)

4. When a mother of the chairman holds a vote, should she recuse herself? If she doesn't, can a motion be made to recuse her?

5.What do the Roberts Rules of Order say about RECUSING oneself over issues that are about onself?

Can we file a motion to recuse the chairman and his mother predicated upon their relationship?

6. How do we remove a chairman at a called special meeting when judgment comes? Does the chairman leave the room at this point?

Thank you

[J. J.]

If the bylaws permit proxies, no previous agreement can prevent them.

While the assembly might create a rule for providing witnesses/evidence, you cannot, unless the bylaws so provide.

[Trina]

For some reason I'm really having trouble parsing posts #1 and #3; will try again later...

For now, just one question -- do your bylaws prescribe this disciplinary procedure that your organization is following? You say the chair is on "trial", so that sure sounds like a disciplinary process. The fact that people are apparently surprised by the planned 'procedures' they've just received by e-mail makes me wonder if any of the process is actually in the bylaws, or if someone is just making it up on the fly.

And, actually, a second question -- you mention county bylaws and state bylaws -- does this mean the organization has county and state levels, or is this actually some sort of governmental entity?

[Guest Edgar]

4. When a mother of the chairman holds a vote, should she recuse herself? If she doesn't, can a motion be made to recuse her?

5.What do the Roberts Rules of Order say about RECUSING oneself over issues that are about onself?

Can we file a motion to recuse the chairman and his mother predicated upon their relationship?

For starters, you might want to remove "recuse" from your vocabulary. RONR doesn't use it so, at least in the context of this forum, it has no meaning.

Then you can stop worrying about people's mothers. Or fathers. Or siblings. Or nieces, nephews, and cousins. Or spouses.

[Guest Dexter]

For now, just one question -- do your bylaws prescribe this disciplinary procedure that your organization is following? You say the chair is on "trial", so that sure sounds like a disciplinary process. The fact that people are apparently surprised by the planned 'procedures' they've just received by e-mail makes me wonder if any of the process is actually in the bylaws, or if someone is just making it up on the fly.

A time, date, etc for a special called county committee meeting to hear allegations of the Chairman not performing his duties for the good of the Party, and to allow the chairman to speak on his own behalf. All rules were followed per RONR, and by-laws. The by-laws dictate removal of an officer, but does not go into great detail of running the meeting when it involves the chairman.

Is there parliamentary protocol detailed by RONR that advises further on this example stated above?

And, actually, a second question -- you mention county bylaws and state bylaws -- does this mean the organization has county and state levels, or is this actually some sort of governmental entity?

Not a governmental entity.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Close to despair.

Dexter, are you the original poster? Either way, I suggest you become a forum member, to avoid the difficult security code for posting by guests. And I think you will have to make some more posts if the responders on this forum could provide you answers.

Here's what little I can do right now:

Guest Dexter, as far as I can tell, your response in Post #7 was not an answer to Trina's first question. Please do.

And Guest Dexter, please answer Trina's middle question: "you mention county bylaws and state bylaws -- does this mean the organization has county and state levels ... ? "

Then maybe we can proceed.

2

[Guest Dexter]

Close to despair

And I think you will have to make some more posts if the responders on this forum could provide you answers.

Yes, I can understand this when one is a Parliamentarian. I am not, therefore, I don't know what you need to get the answers from you. Thank you in advance for taking your time, I know it can be frustrating trying to educate a layman.

For now, just one question -- do your bylaws prescribe this disciplinary procedure that your organization is following? You say the chair is on "trial", so that sure sounds like a disciplinary process. The fact that people are apparently surprised by the planned 'procedures' they've just received by e-mail makes me wonder if any of the process is actually in the bylaws, or if someone is just making it up on the fly.

Our bylaws provide a section for REMOVAL OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF COUNTY COMMITTEE

Details were followed the time, date, for cause, takes 2/3 majority of a quorum present,notice as a special called committee meeting, and so forth. The bylaws do not dictate how to run the meeting, (e.g. when the special called meeting is in regards to the Chairman, who presides over the meeting?) The bylaws do not detail any other reference that I can find. Does RONR reference this situation? If there is no ruling per RONR on this matter please advise.

And, actually, a second question -- you mention county bylaws and state bylaws -- does this mean the organization has county and state levels, or is this actually some sort of governmental entity?

We have county and state levels. State bylaws do not dictate anything further when this type of meeting is called concerning the Chairman. Perhaps, I am overlooking a word, meaning or intent, but if RONR has rules I would appreciate the feedback.

[Gary c Tesser]

...

Here's a couple of stabs.

I think Mr Wynn was kidding in post 2. The original post's "I just want to know that I am on the right track" and "Appreciate [sp] any insight!" seem like clear enough requests, even though posited without a question mark. I'm going to address the points in the Original Post first.

Helpfully, I see that question 1 of post 3 corresponds somewhat to the First point of the Original Post. Makes it simpler to consolidate, especially with the numbers corresponding, eh?

First point, in the Original Post:

An observation before answering it: As far as I can tell, you have not unseated the president yet. The parenthetical remark in Post 1's first point is, right now, a hope, not an accomplishment. Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

Now, assuming that the (regular) Chairman will be suspended from the chair, and assuming that the procedures in RONR are followed, then, yes, the Vice-Chairman will take the chair for that session unless the assembly prefers someone else. (For that, see the last paragraph in Official Interpretation 2, "2006-2 SUSPEND THE RULES TO REMOVE PRESIDENT", at

http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_2 ).

-- 1a. But the second question (of what is labelled question 1) is the kicker. Do the State's bylaws affect what happens? Don't ask us on the Internet -- we can't know. Your group must answer that question on its own, by examining the relationship between the state and county organizations, as specified by what is said in the bylaws of both. If the state's bylaws control, then nothing in RONR that contradicts the bylaws will apply.

Second point:

What's the point? Nothing in the disciplinary procedures in Robert's Rules requires witness lists and documents to be delivered to the vice-chairman at any time. Dexter, or Guest_Guest, what do your rules say?

J.J, in post 4, replied to the Third point of the original post.

______________

Now, to the numbered questions in the anonymous Guest's* post #3:

1. Depends on whether you are using RONR's procedures for discipline, or your organization's own. If you're using your own, then clearly, you have to follow those procedures. Please answer Trina's first question, because Guest Dexter's post (#7) did not answer it. Dexter made some almost unrelated statement, but they don't hang together to answer her question.

2. Of course there is no way that we can't tell you. The answer is clearly in your bylaws, in the part that describes the requirement for special meetings. And if your bylaws do not provide for notice by e-mail, then the notice is invalid if it is sent to any members who have not agreed to be contacted by e-mail.

3. If this process is in accordance with your own procedures, you must follow them. If you are following RONR, Chapter Twenty, then nobody can answer you satisfactorily here: there's just too much. You better read it, and well, and not just Dexter and Guest, or I almost guarantee chaos. See especially p. 653-654. If the meeting is in two days, you better scramble. (Sketching inadequately: If the resolution that notified the Chairman of the trial stated that the accused's membership rights have been suspended, then they have been; if not, they weren't (RONR, 11th Ed, p. 659 and the bottom of p. 662. Wow, citations at last.) And, at trial, "when the closing arguments have been completed, the accused must leave the room.")

4. As mentioned with commendably restrained acerbicity before, Nothing in RONR would require her to recuse herself, and such a motion would be a ridiculous attempt to deprive her of her membership rights -- which can only be done by applying disciplinary procedures to her, too.

5. Ignoring the word "recusing": maybe she should abstain. But she cannot be required to (RONR, 11th Ed, p. 407, lines 21 - 31). And forget about a motion -- see my remark, to question 4, about a similar motion.

6. Whatever does this mean?

____________

* Not really this poster's fault, but I am at my wits' end. Please, no more "Guest_Guests." If you don't want to use your own name, make something up. Is that too hard?

Sorry, Catalina, it's been such a week. But c'mon. (Sorry, too, tp, GPN, for maybe ruining his warm welcome

(But c'mon..)

[Gary c Tesser]

Wups, Guest Dexter's post, #9, crossed with my #10. He did answer some of what I hadn't asked yet! Bravo!

(As long as I'm back: the beginning of my tenth paragraph, "2. Of course there is no way that we can't tell you" should, of course, read: "2. Of course there is no way that we can tell you." My apologies.)

[Tim Wynn]

...

Here's a couple of stabs.

I think Mr Wynn was kidding in post 2.

Well, I find that most of us on this forum can type endlessly on the open subject of parliamentary procedure, so I prefer a specific question to temper those torrential tappings of keyboards.

Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

Now, assuming that the (regular) Chairman will be suspended from the chair, and assuming that the procedures in RONR are followed, then, yes, the Vice-Chairman will take the chair for that session unless the assembly prefers someone else.

"Whenever a motion is made that refers only to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared in common with other members, or that commends or censures him with others, he should turn the chair over to the vice-president or appropriate temporary occupant during tha assembly's consideration of that motion . . ." - RONR (11th ed.), p. 451, ll. 29-35.

[Gary c Tesser]

...

"Whenever a motion is made that refers only to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared in common with other members, or that commends or censures him with others, he should turn the chair over to the vice-president or appropriate temporary occupant during the assembly's consideration of that motion . . " -- RONR (11th ed.), p. 451, ll. 29-35.

Ouch. I missed that thicket for the trees and the forest. (I take it, Tim, that you're with me that this "should" is a [i[rule "should," not a suggestion should?)

(Fixed typo)

[Gary c Tesser]

... [i[rule "should," not a suggestion "should"?)

(Fixed typo)

Crottled greeps!

[Trina]

A special called meeting, called within the by-laws and RR, of hearing complaints against the Chair, and giving the Chair the chance to defend himself. It is a called County Meeting.

I have just received re-Procedures for the Hearing today, however the called meeting is happening this Tuesday night. There are a couple of items that dictate otherwise in our by-laws and per RR we can move to suspend the rules. I just want to know that I am on the right track.

1.The Vice Chairman states, "As I am will be presiding over the hearing, here are the procedures. (By-laws, RR state that we can vote to suspend the rules and remove the chair for this meeting, and elect a temporary chair for the night. Using all RR on this procedure. To elect would not mean the Vice Chairman.

2.A witness list and all documentary evidence will be provided to me and to the opposing parties by the close of busess this Friday-which today is Saturday.

3.By previous mutual consent, no proxies will be permited. (our by-laws state otherwise, and RR states for absentee's are protected... tha tthe conclusion of the findings can be called null and void.No previous consent was discussed).

Questions on this subject:

1. When the chairman is the person that is being brought forth and a hearing, is the VC automatically deemed the Chairman for the hearing? If this is not outlined in RONR, and the county by-laws, is the State by-laws acceptable?

2. Receiving 1 buisness day in advance, emailed to the county members, the procedures and that the VC will be Chairman, is this enough time for the proper announcement?

3. When the chairman is on "trial" is that an automatic "yes" that he is to abstain from voting? When a vote for removing the chairman, does he need to leave the room? (State, County does not have this in the by-laws.)

...

For now, just one question -- do your bylaws prescribe this disciplinary procedure that your organization is following? You say the chair is on "trial", so that sure sounds like a disciplinary process. The fact that people are apparently surprised by the planned 'procedures' they've just received by e-mail makes me wonder if any of the process is actually in the bylaws, or if someone is just making it up on the fly.

A time, date, etc for a special called county committee meeting to hear allegations of the Chairman not performing his duties for the good of the Party, and to allow the chairman to speak on his own behalf. All rules were followed per RONR, and by-laws. The by-laws dictate removal of an officer, but does not go into great detail of running the meeting when it involves the chairman.

...

...

Our bylaws provide a section for REMOVAL OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF COUNTY COMMITTEE

Details were followed the time, date, for cause, takes 2/3 majority of a quorum present,notice as a special called committee meeting, and so forth. The bylaws do not dictate how to run the meeting, (e.g. when the special called meeting is in regards to the Chairman, who presides over the meeting?) The bylaws do not detail any other reference that I can find. Does RONR reference this situation? If there is no ruling per RONR on this matter please advise.

...

Taking another stab at this, I think you are describing two rounds of 'notice' (so to speak) for the upcoming meeting.

First, the actual notice of the special meeting, which seemingly complied with all requirements in the bylaws, and which gave the purpose of the meeting ("hearing complaints against the Chair, and giving the Chair the chance to defend himself."). Second, and separate from the notice of the meeting, comes this recent announcement, by e-mail, from the Vice Chairman, who makes all sorts of pronouncements about how the meeting will be conducted, who will chair the meeting, and all the stuff about witness lists, documentary evidence, and no proxies. Failing any language in the bylaws that give your Vice Chair some quite unusual authority, I think the entire content of this second 'notice' is worth the paper it was written on (oh, wait...), and should be ignored. Except, perhaps, to reprimand the Vice Chair at some point for exceeding his authority and sending out this load of gibberish.

I'll also point out that your first two posts say that the purpose of the special meeting is to hear complaints against the Chair, and to give the Chair the chance to defend himself. In the third and fourth posts we're suddently talking about removal of an officer. DId the call to the special meeting (the real notice, not the later stuff from the Vice Chair) say anything about possible removal at the meeting? If not, I would question whether actual removal is in order at the meeting, even if your bylaws procedure for removal of officers is followed at the meeting. Would a member reading that notice realize that the Chair could be removed at the special meeting? Or would the member reading the notice assume there was just going to be a lot of talk (accusations, questions, responses), and therefore the member might decide not to attend the meeting since no real action would take place?

If the notice of the meeting did convey the possibility of removal, then you just have to follow the disciplinary process described in your bylaws. If that process is thin on detail, the assembly will have to do its best. Again, no one individual (e.g. the Vice Chair) gets to make up a process that is not described in the bylaws.

As for your questions about the Chair presiding at the meeting, I see that Mr. Tesser and Mr. Wynn have both provided information on that point.

[sMargaret]

Curious about "By previous mutual consent, no proxies will be permited" - who is mutually consenting? If it is the entire membership, then that is one thing - if just the chair & vice chair (and the bylaws permit proxies), then that's another thing all together.