Guest JB Posted June 12, 2014 at 08:26 PM Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 at 08:26 PM Our club has a section in the bylaws stating "any member may prefer charges against another member for conduct prejudicial..... If the board votes to entertain jurisdiction on the charges a date for hearing is set.When the parties were notified of the hearing there was an objection to 2 members of the board hearing the matter based on a conflict of interest. They recued themselves and were absent from the hearing.Based on their recusal, should the board have re-voted the question of entertaining jurisdiction based on the conflict of 2 parties that did vote in the motion to entertain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted June 12, 2014 at 08:36 PM Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 at 08:36 PM Our club has a section in the bylaws stating "any member may prefer charges against another member for conduct prejudicial..... If the board votes to entertain jurisdiction on the charges a date for hearing is set.When the parties were notified of the hearing there was an objection to 2 members of the board hearing the matter based on a conflict of interest. They recued themselves and were absent from the hearing.Based on their recusal, should the board have re-voted the question of entertaining jurisdiction based on the conflict of 2 parties that did vote in the motion to entertain? No rule would have required it. See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted June 13, 2014 at 01:36 PM Report Share Posted June 13, 2014 at 01:36 PM Our club has a section in the bylaws stating "any member may prefer charges against another member for conduct prejudicial..... If the board votes to entertain jurisdiction on the charges a date for hearing is set.When the parties were notified of the hearing there was an objection to 2 members of the board hearing the matter based on a conflict of interest. They recued themselves and were absent from the hearing.Based on their recusal, should the board have re-voted the question of entertaining jurisdiction based on the conflict of 2 parties that did vote in the motion to entertain? I don't see why they would. It seems like two different questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.