Guest guest HM Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:08 PM Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:08 PM Our arts organization is dealing with a person who violated our rules & defrauded the organization. Several members made the complaint in writing to the board & presented lots of well-documented evidence of this behavior (he has already been expelled from another organization & had to repay money to them for similar behavior). The problem is that 2 board members are friends of his and determined to protect him ( one has publically declared support for him regardless of anything he has done.) The president has privately stated that she is afraid to cross them. They will not appoint a commitee to investigate. What steps can members take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnR Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:11 PM Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:11 PM What do your bylaws say about discipline and expulsion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:13 PM Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:13 PM This recent discussion might prove instructive.DW5bpa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest HM Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:19 PM Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:19 PM What do your bylaws say about discipline and expulsion?We only have Roberts Rules of Order. The board has proposed new bylaws for disciplinary action but what they proposed was clearly designed specifiacally to protect him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:24 PM Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:24 PM We only have Roberts Rules of Order.If the bylaws don't address disciplinary procedures then the RONR default would apply which means the General Membership would appoint the investigating committee, prefer the charges, hold the trial, and impose any punishment. The Board has nothing to do with it. See RONR Chapter XX for all of the procedures in all of their glory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest HM Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:28 PM Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:28 PM This recent discussion might prove instructive.DW5bpaThe fraudster is not on the board & we have not been trying to remove a board member, we are just trying to get a commitee of investigation appointed. At this point we are wondering if we are going to have to propose a new bylaw regarding disciplinary action & how we could do so without board support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:32 PM Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:32 PM The fraudster is not on the board & we have not been trying to remove a board member . . .Then why do you think your board has any role in this process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest HM Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:43 PM Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:43 PM Then why do you think your board has any role in this process?Our parlimentarian stated that under RRofO they were in charge of the process. It never occured to us that was not true-sorry for the delay- captcha not co-operating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest HM Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:44 PM Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:44 PM If the bylaws don't address disciplinary procedures then the RONR default would apply which means the General Membership would appoint the investigating committee, prefer the charges, hold the trial, and impose any punishment. The Board has nothing to do with it. See RONR Chapter XX for all of the procedures in all of their glory.Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:51 PM Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 at 09:51 PM Our parlimentarian stated that under RRofO they were in charge of the process. It never occured to us that was not true-Shame on that so-called "parliamentarian"!sorry for the delay- captcha not co-operatingTell me about it!5dNGfm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest HM Posted December 20, 2012 at 12:16 AM Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 at 12:16 AM an update- the membership voted that a committee be appointed to investigate, people were selected. We thought things were moving ahead, but just found out that the board quietly decided to let only one charge be investigated & that the evidence gathered & given to the board by a member will not be used. No explanation regarding the evidence, just that it won't be used. We only found out because one board member told us. Our parlimentarian is one of those trying to block the investigation. How should we proceed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 20, 2012 at 02:06 AM Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 at 02:06 AM an update- the membership voted that a committee be appointed to investigate, people were selected. We thought things were moving ahead, but just found out that the board quietly decided to let only one charge be investigated & that the evidence gathered & given to the board by a member will not be used. No explanation regarding the evidence, just that it won't be used. We only found out because one board member told us. Our parlimentarian is one of those trying to block the investigation. How should we proceed?Remind the committee that it was appointed by the membership and not by the board and that the board has no authority over it, and perhaps warn the board that you might need to widen the investigation if they keep up their antics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.