anthonyc76 Posted September 10, 2012 at 02:11 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 02:11 AM If the accuser is the president then he obviously can't preside over the trial correct? Is the "judge" appointed or does that fall to the vice president? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted September 10, 2012 at 02:53 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 02:53 AM If the accuser is the president then he obviously can't preside over the trial correct? Is the "judge" appointed or does that fall to the vice president?Your premise is not correct. In the process laid out in RONR, the "accuser" isn't any one person. An investigating committee is appointed, and charges are preferred only after the committee makes a report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted September 10, 2012 at 02:58 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 02:58 AM As RONR envisions and encapsules disciplinary procedures, there is no accuser. (So the president will not have to leave the chair, which is distinctly not the role of a judge*, except when he is the accused.) "The 'managers' at the trial -- referred to in the fourth resolution of the complete set shown above [p. 659, lines 9 - 30, esp. lines 29 - 30 -- GcT] -- have the task of presenting the evidence against the accused, and must be members of the society. Their duty, however, is not to act as prosecutors -- in the sense of making every effort to secure conviction -- but rather to strive that the trial will get at the truth and that, in the light of all facts brught out, the outcome will be just."If your organization uses the procedures given in RONR (a good idea), you need to read carefully not only the subsection on trial procedure, bottom of p. 663 - 668, but all of Section 63, and prepare for it by reading Section 61. If you will be using other procedures, we here cannot advise you on them. Your procedures might have analogs in RONR, in which case we here on the Robert's Rules Website Forum (RONR MB) could probably tell you about some of them. But there is a good chance that that would be misleading from the get-go. It would have been a lot easier if you had asked something about proxies, so I could have just directed you to FAQ #10.___________I am not practicing law without a license this time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted September 10, 2012 at 02:59 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 02:59 AM Uh oh. I thought he was asleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted September 10, 2012 at 03:07 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 03:07 AM Your premise is not correct. In the process laid out in RONR, the "accuser" isn't any one person. An investigating committee is appointed, and charges are preferred only after the committee makes a report.Ok, let's say that the President brought this member's misdeeds to the assembly's attention and then they went through the process of appointing the investigating committee and preferring charges after the committee had made its report. Since the President got the ball rolling should he then turn over the chair to the VP (or a Chair pro tem) during the trial in addition to when the assembly was appointing the committee and considering the committee's report? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted September 10, 2012 at 03:18 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 03:18 AM Chris, what in RONR would require it, or even recommend it? (Yes we both know the principles; are there specifics to cite?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted September 10, 2012 at 03:47 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 03:47 AM Chris, what in RONR would require it, or even recommend it? (Yes we both know the principles; are there specifics to cite?)I would say that p. 395 ll. 15-18 would seem to be pretty on point though I think it would depend on how the President went about notifying the assembly of the infraction in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted September 10, 2012 at 04:16 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 04:16 AM Ok, let's say that the President brought this member's misdeeds to the assembly's attention and then they went through the process of appointing the investigating committee and preferring charges after the committee had made its report. Since the President got the ball rolling should he then turn over the chair to the VP (or a Chair pro tem) during the trial in addition to when the assembly was appointing the committee and considering the committee's report?Although I wanted to point out that there is no individual role known as "accuser" in the RONR disciplinary process, I agree that the president should not preside if he is in any formal way involved in the proceedings other than as the chair.So, if the president is making the motion to appoint the investigating committee or is serving on the committee, he shouldn't also preside over the handling of that motion or other motions leading to the trial, and probably shouldn't preside over the trial either.And if the president will be a manager at trial, part of the defense, or a witness, or is himself being accused as a member, he shouldn't also preside during the trial or during the handling of any motions to impose a punishment.But I don't think the mere fact that the president "brought this member's misdeeds to the assembly's attention" or "got the ball rolling" would disqualify him from presiding, any more than the president is disqualified from ruling on questions arising out of disorder at a meeting after calling a member to order or "naming" an offender at a meeting.Whenever the president does relinquish the chair, the vice-president, if present, would preside, unless the rules are suspended for the purpose of appointing someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted September 10, 2012 at 04:22 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 04:22 AM As RONR envisions and encapsules disciplinary procedures, there is no accuser. (So the president will not have to leave the chair, which is distinctly not the role of a judge*, except when he is the accused.) ...___________I am not practicing law without a license this time!Good thing, because otherwise we'd be citing RONR (11th ed.), page 666, lines 1-7, during the hearing to revoke the license that you're not practicing without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted September 10, 2012 at 04:51 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 04:51 AM Great Steaming Cobnuts. I have an alibi, my optic nerves weren't connected to anything behind them at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted September 10, 2012 at 02:06 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 02:06 PM Uh oh. I thought he was asleep.Silly boy. Or, maybe he has an alarm that goes off when you post But "uh oh" usually describes what I feel when he posts in a thread where I responded, so it's a normal reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anthonyc76 Posted September 10, 2012 at 05:33 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 05:33 PM not to get into detail but this is all just formality.....but we want to get through this process correctly. Can the "investigative committee" be put together in the same meeting and have their report together to get the trial started but the following month? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted September 10, 2012 at 05:48 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 05:48 PM not to get into detail but this is all just formality.....but we want to get through this process correctly. Can the "investigative committee" be put together in the same meeting and have their report together to get the trial started but the following month?If your bylaws don't provide for disciplinary procedures and you would be holding a trial under RONR you should read pp. 654-668 several times which discusses appointing an investigating committee, the assembly considering the committee's report and preferring charges, how to notice the accused of the charges, holding the trial, considering the question of guilt (and punishment if found guilty). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted September 11, 2012 at 02:06 AM Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 at 02:06 AM Obviously I need to re-read Chapter Twenty a couple more times myself, but I think we can answer Guest_anthonyc76's question with "yes." See p. 657. And mind what Chris H tells you (always): people venturing into disciplinary procedures who neglect familiarity with Chapter Twenty do so at your peril. Guest_anthonyc76, if you're not the same as Original Poster bubbasparx, and if you have any follow-up, please make a new thread for it, so as not to confuse comments to him or her with comments to you. It's hard enough for me to remember how to spell his name, and what your Anthony number is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.