Disciplinary procedures

[Louise]

Two questions:

Is it "better" for the bylaws of an organization that follows RONR to draft its own disciplinary rules, or do those contained in RONR suffice?

AND

Is the removal of a board member necessarily a "disciplinary" issue if the bylaws permit the board and/or association to do so at its pleasure?

[JohnR]

1. RONR's procedure is comprehensive and reflects many years of experience. But only your organization can decide what's best for itself.

2. No.

[Chris Harrison]

Is it "better" for the bylaws of an organization that follows RONR to draft its own disciplinary rules, or do those contained in RONR suffice?

The rules in RONR will suffice procedurally. However, if you are wanting to discipline a member and there is no custom rules in the bylaws it will be a long and drawn out process in going through the appointing of the investigating committee, the committee making its report and the assembly (which would be the General Membership) preferring charges, the accused being notified, and then holding the trial (and any punishment phase). If you adopt custom rules regarding discipline you can streamline the process but if you do make sure to clearly spell out all of the procedures you need (for example how much notice does the accused get to prepare, what rights does the accused retain when the process is pending, what vote is required to impose specific punishments ranging from censure to expulsion, does the accused have any right to appeal the punishment, etc).

Is the removal of a board member necessarily a "disciplinary" issue if the bylaws permit the board and/or association to do so at its pleasure?

I suppose not. However, if you are asking because you are trying to figure out whether removal from the Board constitutes a "disciplinary issue" per your bylaws it will be up to you all to determine that.

[Rev Ed]

While RONR's rules on discipline are lengthy, they do provide some time for "consideration" and actions are not taken in haste. However, some organizations do find it faster/easier to have a more "simplified" system. It al depends on the organization and each organization will have its unique issuess when dealing with its operation. No two sets of procedures need be the same, nor is either one wrong in any way.

As for the removal of a Board member, it would all depend on the grounds for removal - some organization require a specific reason, others allow for any reason (i.e. the Board member likes the colour green or red) as a reason for removal. It all depends on the wording of the By-law.

[Louise]

The rules in RONR will suffice procedurally. However, if you are wanting to discipline a member and there is no custom rules in the bylaws it will be a long and drawn out process in going through the appointing of the investigating committee, the committee making its report and the assembly (which would be the General Membership) preferring charges, the accused being notified, and then holding the trial (and any punishment phase). If you adopt custom rules regarding discipline you can streamline the process but if you do make sure to clearly spell out all of the procedures you need (for example how much notice does the accused get to prepare, what rights does the accused retain when the process is pending, what vote is required to impose specific punishments ranging from censure to expulsion, does the accused have any right to appeal the punishment, etc).

I would imagine that streamlining the process may mean that the potential to run roughshod over a member's rights could increase significantly.

I suppose not. However, if you are asking because you are trying to figure out whether removal from the Board constitutes a "disciplinary issue" per your bylaws it will be up to you all to determine that.

Removal of board members is generally a disciplinary issue according to the bylaws of the organizations of which I'm currently a member. (According to the bylaws, board members also cease to be board members if they cease to be members of the organization.)

It was more of a hypothetical question. *Could* a board member be removed "just because" (according to RONR) if there was nothing in the bylaws prohibiting such an action.

Thanks to all of you.

[JohnR]

Is the removal of a board member necessarily a "disciplinary" issue if the bylaws permit the board and/or association to do so at its pleasure?

*Could* a board member be removed "just because" (according to RONR) if there was nothing in the bylaws prohibiting such an action.

These are different questions. "At pleasure" means there is no fixed term of office or the appointee serves "or until a successor is named." In this case, an officer may be removed without cause.

In all other cases, officers may be removed for cause and it then becomes a matter of discipline and due process.

[Guest Edgar]

In all other cases, officers may be removed for cause and it then becomes a matter of discipline and due process.

I think some feel that including the phrase "for cause" acts as a sort of magic bullet to prevent abuse (or even mere whimsy) but, as a recent (somewhat notorious) topic suggests, "for cause" opens a hole big enough to drive the proverbial truck through. At best, "due process" makes sure the brakes on the truck are working. Not that that's a small thing.

[JohnR]

Ah yes. Perhaps we can call this the "788:1" principle.

[Guest Edgar]

Ah yes. Perhaps we can call this the "788:1" principle.

Or perhaps the 1 Chronicles 21:13 principle?

[Louise]

These are different questions. "At pleasure" means there is no fixed term of office or the appointee serves "or until a successor is named." In this case, an officer may be removed without cause.

In all other cases, officers may be removed for cause and it then becomes a matter of discipline and due process.

So if bylaws state that a term of office shall be for two years "or until a successor is named" (not "elected"?), and if a sufficient number of board members (as per the bylaws) agree a certain fellow board member should be removed, does a board member simply make a motion to remove the "objectionable" board member at a board meeting? Does that board member need to be present or advised in advance of this motion (assuming the bylaws are silent on further specifics)?

I apologize for all the questions. I'm just trying to wrap my head this.

I think some feel that including the phrase "for cause" acts as a sort of magic bullet to prevent abuse (or even mere whimsy) but, as a recent (somewhat notorious) topic suggests, "for cause" opens a hole big enough to drive the proverbial truck through. At best, "due process" makes sure the brakes on the truck are working. Not that that's a small thing.

Yes, that is the thread that led me to post these questions.

So then should a board member be singled out for removal by his or her fellow board members in such a case, the bylaws of the organization will hopefully provide for an appeal to the members of the organization itself. And if the members of the larger group uphold the decision of the board members to remove their fellow member, then that is that. But if the members do not uphold that decision, I would imagine that the board may be in for one heck of a fun time with its now-reinstated member.

Am I on the right track here?

[Guest Edgar]

. . . if the members do not uphold that decision, I would imagine that the board may be in for one heck of a fun time with its now-reinstated member.

Which seems to be a good reason not to give a board the authority to remove one of its members (a member who was probably elected by the general membership, perhaps as the first step in reigning in a renegade board).

[Louise]

Which seems to be a good reason not to give a board the authority to remove one of its members (a member who was probably elected by the general membership, perhaps as the first step in reigning in a renegade board).

Indeed.

Although I imagine this authority is (hopefully) more often used to remove someone who is causing problems for the board and/or organization, without having to go through all of the disciplinary hoops. (And yes, I realize what is or is not a "problem" can be rather subjective...)

There doesn't appear to be any "perfect" way to balance this...at least, not when you get people involved.

[Dan Honemann]

Indeed.

Although I imagine this authority is (hopefully) more often used to remove someone who is causing problems for the board and/or organization, without having to go through all of the disciplinary hoops. (And yes, I realize what is or is not a "problem" can be rather subjective...)

There doesn't appear to be any "perfect" way to balance this...at least, not when you get people involved.

In those instances in which the membership elects the members of the board (the usual case), the board will have no power to remove one of its members unless that power is specifically conferred upon it by the bylaws (which would be highly unusual).

[Louise]

In those instances in which the membership elects the members of the board (the usual case), the board will have no power to remove one of its members unless that power is specifically conferred upon it by the bylaws (which would be highly unusual).

That clarifies this for me. Thank you very much.

So this power being conferred upon the board by the bylaws is probably "highly unusual" due to the potential for abuse of that power by the board.

[Gary Novosielski]

Although I imagine this authority is (hopefully) more often used to remove someone who is causing problems for the board and/or organization, without having to go through all of the disciplinary hoops.

In my experience, the reason "someone" is causing problems for the board is either that the board is not following the bylaws, and has a good deal of trouble coming to them, or the chair is not sufficiently competent to keep proper order. Some people confuse dissent with disloyalty.

All the bylaws I've ever seen that allowed directors to remove another director, elected by the membership, listed one or more specific conditions for removal, the most common (and reasonable) of which was missing some specified number of meetings without permission.