Does member have right to confront accuser?

[Guest Joshua]

Our exec cmte has held several 'trials' of members who had formal complaints filed against them. At each trial, the complaining member was not present. The exec cmte claims the complainant doesn't have to be present.

Also, the exec cmte never informs a member who complained against the.

Is this denial of due process, even though it's a private club?

[jstackpo]

In RONR's discipline procedures -- Chapter 20 -- the accused does have an opportunity to confront his accusers.

But, from your brief description, it doesn't sound as though as though club is following RONR's procedures. Do you have adopted rules and procedures of your own? If so, they supersede RONR's rules. Has your club adopted, in the bylaws, RONR as your parliamentary authority?

[Guest Joshua]

Club Constitution and By-Laws state "All meetings conducted by this Association shall be regulated and governed by Roberts Rules of Order (latest revision)."

Our disciplinary By-Laws state "By a written vote of two thirds of the membership present at a regular meeting of the Association, any member may be expelled for violation of the By Laws or Rules of the Association and/or for unsportsmanlike or unbecoming conduct, upon the written complaint by any member to the Executive Committee which shall investigate said complaint before proposing said expulsion at said regular meeting. The general membership shall be advised of the proposed expulsion via written notification, to be sent not less than two weeks prior to said meeting."

[jstackpo]

OK... those are your rules (not RONR's) so it is up to your association to work with them.

[JohnR]

In RONR's discipline procedures -- Chapter 20 -- the accused does have an opportunity to confront his accusers.

Do you mean the managers and their witnesses? I don't see anything in RONR that implies the defendant has the right to confront the person who instigated a complaint.

[Gary Novosielski]

Club Constitution and By-Laws state "All meetings conducted by this Association shall be regulated and governed by Roberts Rules of Order (latest revision)."

Our disciplinary By-Laws state "By a written vote of two thirds of the membership present at a regular meeting of the Association, any member may be expelled for violation of the By Laws or Rules of the Association and/or for unsportsmanlike or unbecoming conduct, upon the written complaint by any member to the Executive Committee which shall investigate said complaint before proposing said expulsion at said regular meeting. The general membership shall be advised of the proposed expulsion via written notification, to be sent not less than two weeks prior to said meeting."

Is there some other part of the bylaws that gives the exec committee the right to hold trials, because it sure isn't in what you quoted, which sounds more equivalent to the role of an investigative committee which decides whether to bring charges, not to conduct the actual trial. But they're your custom rules, so it's up to your membership to figure out what they mean.

According to RONR, the accused must be given notice of the trial, and has the right to attend, but if he decides not to, the trial can take place without him.

[Guest Joshua]

Is there some other part of the bylaws that gives the exec committee the right to hold trials, because it sure isn't in what you quoted, and it's not in RONR either.

In RONR, the accused must be given notice of the meeting and has the right to attend, but if he decides not to, the meeting can take place without him.

That's the entire extent of our disciplinary rules. The Board interprets "The Executive Committee shall investigate said complaint..." as a trial. The accused have always been given notice of these meetings and can refuse to attend. However, the Board maintains the accuser doesn't have to be present at these trial/meetings. And indeed the accuser is never present.

[Gary Novosielski]

If by "accuser" you mean the person who wrote the complaint, then perhaps not. Yet presumably there would have to be witnesses to the alleged offense, and one would expect the complainant to be among them, in most cases.

Still, if there are witnesses that can present clear and convincing proof without the original complainant getting involved, I guess that's possible. The section you quoted doesn't appear to say for sure, and RONR's rules don't appear to require it either.

[Guest Joshua]

If by "accuser" you mean the person who wrote the complaint, then perhaps not. Yet presumably there would have to be witnesses to the alleged offense, and one would expect the complainant to be among them, in most cases.

Still, if there are witnesses that can present clear and convincing proof without the original complainant getting involved, I guess that's possible. The section you quoted doesn't appear to say for sure, and RONR's rules don't appear to require it either.

Yes, by accuser I mean the complainant. In this particular case the written complaint is filled with hearsay, such as "he was told not to do it"; "I heard he did" (such and such); "people have complained", etc. In no case are any of these 'witnesses' named. And no one else has filed a complaint against the accused in corroboration with the complainant.

The complainant seems to believe that if she said the accused did something, her accusation should be enough to get the accused kicked out of the club.

[Gary Novosielski]

The complainant seems to believe that if she said the accused did something, her accusation should be enough to get the accused kicked out of the club.

In a properly managed trial, such a belief would be tested, to say the least.

[Guest Sam Prris]

Yes, by accuser I mean the complainant. In this particular case the written complaint is filled with hearsay, such as "he was told not to do it"; "I heard he did" (such and such); "people have complained", etc.

I believe he was also seen square dancing with cats in the woods under a half moon while no music was playing.

66QWQ9

[Trina]

Yes, by accuser I mean the complainant. In this particular case the written complaint is filled with hearsay, such as "he was told not to do it"; "I heard he did" (such and such); "people have complained", etc. In no case are any of these 'witnesses' named. And no one else has filed a complaint against the accused in corroboration with the complainant.

The complainant seems to believe that if she said the accused did something, her accusation should be enough to get the accused kicked out of the club.

If this type of complaint is sufficient to get someone thrown out of your club, there is a problem with the basic sense of fairness of the people conducting the investigation (or, in your case apparently, the 'trial'), along with a lack of critical thinking on the part of the general membership... if they vote for expulsion.

Also, the practice of allowing a single individual to 'file a complaint' against another member (which is not the way the disciplinary process works if the rules in RONR are followed) seems prone to abuse, in that one vindictive individual can single-handedly start the ball rolling.

Your organization might consider amending the bylaws if your existing disciplinary process isn't working well in practice. At least clarify the extent of the authority of the executive committee (is the committee really allowed to conduct a trial?).

[sMargaret]

Section 63 of RONR has this section in it:

"STEPS IN A FAIR DISCIPLINARY PROCESS. Most ordinary societies should never have to hold a formal trial, and their bylaws need not be encumbered with clauses on discipline. For the protection of the society and members alike, however, the basic steps which, in any organization, make up the elements of fair disciplinary process should be understood. Any special procedures established should be built essentially around them, and the steps should be followed in the absence of such provisions."

The steps are confidential investigation by committee, report of the investigation committee; preferral of charges, formal notification of the officer or member, trial procedure, assembly's review of a trial committee's findings. See pages 656 to 669 (yes, there is a great deal of detail).

You may wish to suggest a review of your bylaws, or raise a point of order that the disciplinary procedures as laid out in RONR aren't being followed, and then have your members interpret your bylaws.

[JohnR]

The Board interprets "The Executive Committee shall investigate said complaint..." as a trial.

This appears to be trial by committee, which is a permissible alternative to trial by the full assembly. And once again, nothing in RONR says that the accused has the right to confront the person who made a complaint. However, it seems to me that conducting a trial exceeds the power of investigation. If members find that the committee's practices violate the bylaws, a point of order may be raised.

[Guest Nancy N.]

(I've been under the impression that it's a bad idea to abbreviate "executive committee" to just "committee" (partly because it's not). Or am I being fussy.)

1.

[JohnR]

Are you quibbling that the Executive Committee is really "a board within a board"? That may be so, but in this case it also appears to function as a Committee on Discipline, q.v.

[Gary Novosielski]

Having the Executive Committee jump directly from complaint to trial would appear to short-circuit some important steps in a fair process, as pointed out by sMargaret, viz.,

• confidential investigation by committee
  
• report of the investigation committee
  
• preferral of charges
  
• formal notification of the officer or member
  

Trial would be the next step.

Granted that even an unfair procedure would supersede RONR, but that makes it no less unfair.