Investigative Committee Membership

[Guest Jason Gonella]

My Town Council's bylaws defer to RROONR when they do not address a topic, and this topic isn't addressed.

When a council member is accused of wrongdoing, an investigative committee is formed. The accuser picks a member, the accused picks a member, and the representative pick a third member to chair the committee.

So a three person committee.

We have a person accused, who chose himself to represent himself on this committee.

Is there anything in RROONR that says the accused may not be his representative on his investigative committee?

[Gary c Tesser]

When you say this topic is not addressed in your bylaws, do you include the appointment of the investigating (that's what RONR -- incidentally, "RONR" is the preferred abbreviation -- call it) committee in that? I ask because the procedure you give is not how RONR says to appoint a committee. (Also -- sorry to interrupt so much, but when you say that "the representative pick a third member," who is the representative?) RONR says, "A committee whose members are selected for known integrity and good judgement conducts a confidential investigation ...(p. 656, bottom)." The methods of populating committees in general are covered elsewhere (the sections "Commit or Refer" and "Committees"); in short, the choice is the assembly's, not of any individuals. Now, you or I (and maybe everyone else) might question the "good judgement" of a character who would appoint himself; but since integrity and good judgement are in the eye of the beholder, I'll venture that this is not a requirement by RONR; rather, it's strong and strongly-encouraged advice.

If you prefer the short answer, then, I'd say it's "no."

[Guest Edgar]

If you prefer the short answer, then, I'd say it's "no."

I'd say that should be the long answer as well.

[Rev Ed]

Is there anything in RROONR that says the accused may not be his representative on his investigative committee?

Based on the system the Council uses, no. According to RONR, this is not the way you would appoint the Committee, but if this is the way the Council does it, then this is how it is done.

I would question why the accused would do this - for appearance shake - but as there appears to be no way to stop it. Maybe the accused feels this is the best way of making sure he/she gets a fair hearing - were there any other members willing to represent this member?

[Guest Jason Gonella]

Our bylaws say that if any subject matter is not addressed in the bylaws then we default to RONR. A pretty standard clause in any set of bylaws.

The bylaws give a method for choosing the representatives on the investigative committee. The accused chooses one representative, the accuser chooses one representative, and the two representaitves get together and choose one person to be the third member of the committee. This third person is also the chair of the committee.

This person, the accused, is able to find people to represent him, but very badly wants there to be no investigation at all. The request was submitted once before, and he was able to stop it with a technicality. It was then submitted again, and he failed to get the investigation dismissed a second time. It is my belief that by being his own representative he hopes to impede the investigation.

I looked first to the bylaws, and found nothing saying he could not be his own representative. So since it is not addressed we default to RONR, which is the question raised in this thread if there is anything in RONR that says he cannot be his own investigator. Apparently there is not.

[Josh Martin]

I looked first to the bylaws, and found nothing saying he could not be his own representative. So since it is not addressed we default to RONR, which is the question raised in this thread if there is anything in RONR that says he cannot be his own investigator. Apparently there is not.

Correct. In RONR. the investigative committee is appointed by the assembly, so there is no need for such a rule, since the assembly would (presumably) use its own judgment and determine that it probably wouldn't be the best idea to have someone investigate himself. In the future, you may want to amend your Bylaws to include such a rule, or perhaps consider whether this "accused vs. accuser" setup is a good way to handle an investigation at all.