Guest Sam Posted October 7, 2012 at 04:16 PM Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 at 04:16 PM Our hunting/fishing/shooting club is a non-profit corporation. Our bylaws allow for expulsion for "unsportsmanlike conduct" and "unbecoming conduct".Neither of these terms are defined. However, "unsportsmanlike conduct" in a hunting/shooting/fishing club is generally understood to be things like deliberately shooting at target frames (instead of shooting at the target attached to frame), hunting out of season, fishing without a license, etc. All of these things are violations of what most sportsmen consider to be the 'rules' (written or unwritten) that hunters and target shooters should abide by."Unbecoming Conduct" is another story. Our bylaws have no definitions for what constitutes unbecoming conduct. The definition seems to float depending on who is targeted and how well they are liked or disliked.Currently our Board will review a complaint against a member. The Board will then decide whether or not to hold a club-wide vote to expel the member complained about. But...in this procedure it's the Board, not the membership, who's decided the member committed unbecoming conduct.This is prejudicial against any member the board doesn't like and it seems wrong to me.I know RONR states that members decide what actions, words, behaviors constitute unbecoming conduct. I interpret that to mean members must first make a list of what unbecoming conduct is and then update the bylaws to include that list. EXAMPLES OF INEQUITABLE DISCIPLINE BY BOARD?No Expulsion For Assault With Deadly WeaponA member on the rifle range was firing across shooting lanes. It's a violation to shoot across shooting lanes. Like throwing a bowling ball in the lane next to you, but much more dangerous with bullets. When advised he was in violation, this member struck another member in the chest with a heavy sandbag rifle rest (approx 8lbs). The member who was assaulted filed a complaint and asked the Board recommend to the general membership the attacker be expelled. The Board refused to recommend expulsion, but levied a very short suspension of shooting priveleges.No Expulsion For Assault On Senior CitizenA member checking tickets pushed an over 65 years of age member in the chest after some kind of stupid words were exchanged between them both. The elder member didn't file a complaint. The Board was fully aware of this altercation and assault but took no action on it's own, either.Possible Expulsion Based On Discriminatory, Malicious, False ComplaintA complaint by Karen Z. has recently been filed against 'member X' alleging unbecoming conduct. The complaint can be characterized as a vindictive, malicious expression of Karen Z's well known personal dislike of member X. In essence, Karen Z objects to member X's personality; his manner of speaking, presentation, inflection, and elocution; and his "exhuberant" speaking at meetings; his political views; and his views on current events in the country. Karen Z has requested the Board recommend to membership the expulsion of member X.Karen Z's complaint references items that occurred before she was even a member. The complaint similarly cites occurrances which happened 18 months ago. It's now known that at every single meeting for the past 18 months Karen Z has taken notes exclusively on member X's participations in the meetings, in club business, and in club social affairs.In essence, for more than 18 months Karen Z has targeted member X and then engaged in a personal persecution of member X through a campaign of propaganda, smears, and outright lies.Member X is indeed an active participant at general meetings as well as a participant in the political processes of the club. He articulates exceptionally well, if at times a bit lengthy, and his verbal observations are always germane and relevant to the club business at hand. He's brought several improvements to the club, all voted upon by majority vote at general meetings.Many members, aware of Karen Z's complaint against member X are convinced that Karen Z would never file a complaint against one of her club buddies or any other member who shared member X's same qualities of character and club participation.However, member X has generated a lot of enemies. These are people who prefer to sit quietly through a meeting without speaking, vote the same way as the majority does, and not participate in the campaigns for club offices. They can be characterized as being content with whatever status quo is prevelant at a given time.Member X's unpopularity due to his participation and refusal to be a "Stepford Man Member" may do him in should a general membership vote (400 members) be held to expel him. Such expulsion would be based purely on personal prejudices, ignorances, and imagined slights and insults.DOES RONR REQUIRE OR SUGGEST BYLAWS PRECISELY DEFINE WHAT ACTIONS, WORDS, BEHAVIORS CAN RESULT IN EXPULSION? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 7, 2012 at 04:31 PM Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 at 04:31 PM DOES RONR REQUIRE OR SUGGEST BYLAWS PRECISELY DEFINE WHAT ACTIONS, WORDS, BEHAVIORS CAN RESULT IN EXPULSION?No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMargaret Posted October 7, 2012 at 05:14 PM Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 at 05:14 PM From section 61: "If improper conduct by a member of a society occurs elsewhere than at a meeting, the members generally have no first-hand knowledge of the case. Therefore, if disciplinary action is to be taken, charges must be preferred and a formal trial held before the assembly of the society, or before a committee - standing or special - which should be required to report its findings and recommendations to the assembly for action."Guest Sam's association apparently requires a complaint to be made, then the Board decides whether or not to hold a club-wide vote to expel the member. Sam, is there any trial in your association? Does Member X have the opportunity to defend his actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted October 7, 2012 at 05:17 PM Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 at 05:17 PM Our hunting/fishing/shooting club is a non-profit corporation. Our bylaws allow for expulsion for "unsportsmanlike conduct" and "unbecoming conduct"....Currently our Board will review a complaint against a member. The Board will then decide whether or not to hold a club-wide vote to expel the member complained about....Is this involvement of the board prescribed in the bylaws? Or is it just a practice that is 'currently' followed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sam Posted October 7, 2012 at 05:50 PM Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 at 05:50 PM Guest Sam's association apparently requires a complaint to be made, then the Board decides whether or not to hold a club-wide vote to expel the member. Sam, is there any trial in your association? Does Member X have the opportunity to defend his actions?Margaret;Yes. The Board has scheduled a trial. Member X received a certified letter with a copy of Karen Z's complaint. The letter stated "you are invited to a Board meeting....enclosed is a copy of the complaint against you....be prepared for question and answer session".We believe, and hope, member X will present a stout defense and rebuttal of the charges against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sam Posted October 7, 2012 at 05:52 PM Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 at 05:52 PM No.Thank you Dan. Can I interpret your response to mean that inequity of discipline is acceptable? In other words, a well liked member can get away with saying or doing X, Y, Z....but a member who's not as well liked can be expelled for doing the same X, Y, Z?Thanks again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnR Posted October 7, 2012 at 06:10 PM Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 at 06:10 PM I believe Dan is saying no, RONR does not require or suggest that bylaws precisely define what actions, words, or behaviors can result in expulsion. RONR prescribes a disciplinary process but does not substitute itself for the judgment of the organization. Equitable treatment is in the hands of the judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sam Posted October 7, 2012 at 06:37 PM Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 at 06:37 PM Equitable treatment is in the hands of the judges.Then heaven help us all."Let the Lord decide the punishment and I will accept whatever it is; however, do not let me fall into the hand of man" (King David after he sinned by taking a census) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted October 10, 2012 at 01:22 AM Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 at 01:22 AM No.Number of words in original post: 788.Number of words in reply: 1.This has got to be some kind of record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 10, 2012 at 01:45 AM Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 at 01:45 AM Thank you Dan. Can I interpret your response to mean that inequity of discipline is acceptable? In other words, a well liked member can get away with saying or doing X, Y, Z....but a member who's not as well liked can be expelled for doing the same X, Y, Z?Thanks again....I wouldn't interpret his response that way.But it may be that inequity was acceptable to the folks who drafted your bylaws, or the members who approved them, if they give the board such powers.The rules on discipline in RONR take considerably greater pains to emphasize fairness, but they have apparently been superseded by the ones in your bylaws. And as Dan pointed out, there is no prohibition in RONR against your society Including unfair disciplinary rules in its bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.