Chair Resigned membership because of charges, but came back to society to volunteer for event

[Guest Leo Cachu]

Our former Chair resigned membership because of charges. He didn't want to go through trial.

He came back as a non-member to volunteer for one of our society's sponsored event.

 

Since he did not want to be disciplined after the trail he resigned membership to our society.

The misconduct and derelection of duty in office charges are still in the our files and possibly one

of the disciplinary actions that could have been taken was to not allow the former Chair to be envolved

in the specific event He came back to.

 

It is possible that he could again come back to our society and volunteer again.  We believe that He should not be

allowed to return.

 

Is there any course of action that the Roberts Rule of Order can suggest?

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

Our former Chair resigned membership because of charges. He didn't want to go through trial.

He came back as a non-member to volunteer for one of our society's sponsored event.

 

Since he did not want to be disciplined after the trail he resigned membership to our society.

The misconduct and derelection of duty in office charges are still in the our files and possibly one

of the disciplinary actions that could have been taken was to not allow the former Chair to be envolved

in the specific event He came back to.

 

It is possible that he could again come back to our society and volunteer again.  We believe that He should not be

allowed to return.

 

Is there any course of action that the Roberts Rule of Order can suggest?

 

Presumably your Society has its own rules concerning who may and who may not volunteer for its sponsored events, and who may and who may not participate in such events. There are no rules in Robert's Rules of Order relating to such matters.

[Guest Edgar]

We believe that He should not be allowed to return.

 

Is there any course of action that the Roberts Rule of Order can suggest?

 

Adopt a resolution to that effect. Start with a "Whereas" (or two, or three, or ten), describing his bad behavior and end with a "Resolved" stating that he will not be allowed to participate in any event sponsored by the association. See pp.105-109 for the proper placement of commas and semicolons.

 

By the way, if you wanted to continue with disciplinary action against him you should not have accepted his resignation. In fact, that's one of the few reasons not to accept a resignation.

[Dan Honemann]

Adopt a resolution to that effect. Start with a "Whereas" (or two, or three, or ten), describing his bad behavior and end with a "Resolved" stating that he will not be allowed to participate in any event sponsored by the association. See pp.105-109 for the proper placement of commas and semicolons.

 

By the way, if you wanted to continue with disciplinary action against him you should not have accepted his resignation. In fact, that's one of the few reasons not to accept a resignation.

 

In other words, propose that your Society adopt its own rule on the subject if it doesn't already have one.

 

PS - I would suggest, however, that you be very careful about the inclusion of "Whereas" clauses describing his bad behavior. Not a good idea.

[Chris Harrison]

I would suggest, however, that you be very careful about the inclusion of "Whereas" clauses describing his bad behavior. Not a good idea.

Just out of curiosity why is that?   Is it because of the potential legal consequences of putting his misbehavior in writing (other than in the charges and specifications)? 

[Rev Ed]

Adopt a resolution to that effect. Start with a "Whereas" (or two, or three, or ten), describing his bad behavior and end with a "Resolved" stating that he will not be allowed to participate in any event sponsored by the association. See pp.105-109 for the proper placement of commas and semicolons.

 

I concur - if you do not want this person having anything to do with the organization then the organization can decide not to accept his offers to volunteer.  RONR would allow you to pass a resolution such as what Edgar has stated.  Although from a 'common sense' point of view - why would you accept his offers to volunteer if you don't want him around.  Plus, most jurisdictions would allow the organization to ask him to leave and then call the police if he refuses.  No business/organization has to legally do business with someone or allow them at their events or on their premises.

 

By the way, if you wanted to continue with disciplinary action against him you should not have accepted his resignation. In fact, that's one of the few reasons not to accept a resignation.

 

Yes and no.  The 'honorable thing to do' when something goes wrong is normally to resign.  At least at one time.  It has been generally better to accept a resignation simply to stop the trial before any decision is made.

 

However, I do concur that this is an example of one of the few times that a resignation should not be accepted.  However, if the resignation is accepted, the motion could read something to the effect of "That the organization approve the resignation of John Doe, with the understanding that he never have anything to do with the organization in the future."  Normally the "with the understanding ..." part would not be required when accepting a resignation, but if the resignation is in lieu of removal due to a trial, it can sometimes be better to add this to make it clear.

[Guest Edgar]

In other words, propose that your Society adopt its own rule on the subject if it doesn't already have one.

 

Okay, though I don't see adopting a resolution dealing with this one particular case as establishing a rule but I suppose it can be seen that way.

 

Just out of curiosity why is that?   Is it because of the potential legal consequences of putting his misbehavior in writing (other than in the charges and specifications)? 

 

My guess (going out on a limb here) is that, absent a trial, the bad behavior is merely alleged.

 

Which makes we wonder what, if any, the procedure would be for "trying" a (former) member whose resignation has already been accepted. Or has that ship sailed? In other words, is there a way to establish guilt in the absence of a defendant?

[Rev Ed]

My guess (going out on a limb here) is that, absent a trial, the bad behavior is merely alleged.

 

This is why, more for employees, but by default for officers, directors, members, etc. that a resignation is usually more of the 'honourable' thing to do.  If there is no trial (for a member), or dismissal with cause (employee), then everyone can claim that the person left on 'good terms.' 

 

Which makes we wonder what, if any, the procedure would be for "trying" a (former) member whose resignation has already been accepted. Or has that ship sailed? In other words, is there a way to establish guilt in the absence of a defendant?

 

Once the member has resigned and the resignation accepted, why would a trail be required.  The issue has been dealt with.  Although, as I have stated, there are ways of dealing with the resignation to indicate that there will be no more relationship between the former member and the organization.

[Guest Edgar]

Once the member has resigned and the resignation accepted, why would a trail be required.  The issue has been dealt with.

 

I was wondering if, in this case, there would be a process for establishing guilt so that the organization could adopt a resolution that included the bad behavior in the preamble (something Mr. Honemann advised against).

 

But I suppose the simplest thing would just be to adopt a motion prohibiting this person from participating in any association event and leave the reasons on the debating floor.

 

And, while I understand that there are instances where resigning might be the honorable thing to do, in this case it appears this member was simply trying to escape prosecution so he can return as a volunteer with a "clean record". The old "You can't fire me; I quit!" approach.

[Rev Ed]

I concur - which is also why I suggested the motion "That the organization approve the resignation of John Doe, with the understanding that he never have anything to do with the organization in the future" or words to that effect.

[Josh Martin]

I was wondering if, in this case, there would be a process for establishing guilt so that the organization could adopt a resolution that included the bad behavior in the preamble (something Mr. Honemann advised against).

 

It seems unlikely that conducting a trial for a nonmember is proper (or practical). Even if a trial was conducted, I don't think it would change anything. Take a look at what is said in RONR, 11th ed., pg. 655, lines 5-23. If the assembly insists on getting into the gritty details of the former member's behavior, it should be sure to enter executive session.