Reprimand of a Board Member

[Guest Terry]

Is it the responsibility of the President to Reprimand a board member for a breach of Confidentialty and does it have to come before the board or is this done in private

[Chris Harrison]

The President only has the authority the bylaws give him.  Generally speaking it is not up to a single member (or officer) to take official disciplinary action (that authority belongs to the General Membership unless they have delegated it elsewhere).  See RONR Chapter XX for details.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

(. . .of the president . . .?)

 

No.

You won't find such a "responsibility" given to a president within the 11th edtion of RONR.

 

(... done in private . . .?)

 

What you do in private is private.

Robert's Rules of Order is a set of rules for in-meeting behavior. There won't be a lot of exo-meeting rules in RONR.

[bobby101]

To: Chris Harrison    Can I rephrase your answer (for grammatical accuracy only) to be,  "That the President has only the authority that the by-laws give him."  And, when the President and the board break the by-laws, dealing with confidentiality, or to sanction members, or for any other reason, what's the recourse? 

[Edgar Guest]

And, when the President and the board break the by-laws, dealing with confidentiality, or to sanction members, or for any other reason, what's the recourse? 

 

The recourse is for the general membership to act.

[Richard Brown]

 when the President and the board break the by-laws, dealing with confidentiality, or to sanction members, or for any other reason, what's the recourse? 

 

Part of the answer depends on what your bylaws say re the powers of the Board vs the general membership and who has the power to remove officers and/or Board members.  Read your bylaws carefully for  those provisions.

 

Disciplinary procedures are covered in great detail in Chapter XX of RONR, 11th edition, starting on page 643.  Disciplinary procedures can be very complex and RONR  devotes 26 pages to the subject.  I strongly suggest that you get a copy of it and read those provisions.  Actions which can be taken include two forms of censure, removal from office, suspension, and expulsion from membership.  You cannot levy a fine unless your bylaws authorize it. 

 

Edited to add:  Don't look for those disciplinary procedures in any online version of "Robert's Rules of Order".  The most recent online edition is almost 100 years out of date.  Get the "right book":  Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition, consisting of 716 pages

.

The recourse is for the general membership to act.

 

Probably, but the final answer depends at least in part on what the bylaws say.  The rest of the board may have power to act and may have the power to discipline and/or remove officers and its own members.  Ultimately, it may be up to the general membership to take action.

[Edgar Guest]

The rest of the board may have power to act and may have the power to discipline and/or remove officers and its own members. 

 

Since, in Mr. Simons' scenario, "the board" broke the bylaws, one presumes that "the rest of the board" is in the minority. As such, what would you suggest they do?

[Richard Brown]

Since, in Mr. Simons' scenario, "the board" broke the bylaws, one presumes that "the rest of the board" is in the minority. As such, what would you suggest they do?

 

Who is Mr. Simons?

 

Guest Terry's original post referred only to a single board member doing something wrong.  Here's what he said:  "Is it the responsibility of the President to Reprimand a board member for a breach of Confidentialty and does it have to come before the board or is this done in private"

 

I think it's not at all clear what is going on or whether the majority of the Board is complicit nor is it clear what powers this Board has vs the powers of the general membership.  Without knowing more, I'm not going to say authoritatively that "the recourse is for the general membership to act".  I will agree, and did say, that it may well be up to the general membership to act.  We don't know enough at the moment to know whose court the ball is in.

[Edgar Guest]

Who is Mr. Simons?

 

"bobby101" is Mr. Simons. And it was to his post that you replied.

 

Edited to add: I admit that we both may have conflated his post and the original post.

[Chris Harrison]

Actions which can be taken include two forms of censure,

 

Admittedly I may not have had enough coffee this morning but I am aware of only one form of censure.  What is the 2nd?

 

[Richard Brown]

Admittedly I may not have had enough coffee this morning but I am aware of only one form of censure.  What is the 2nd?

 

 

The non-disciplinary form, which is handled just as a motion to commend someone or to ratify something, as provided on page 125 starting on line 15.  Also on page 137 starting on line 20.  Also line 1 on page 344.  And on page 451 starting on line 29.  And finally the footnote at the bottom of page 643,

 

The "disciplinary form" is discussed on page 643 starting on line 13.  I interpret that as meaning that censure is one of the punishments that can be issued (or imposed) through formal disciplinary proceedings.

[Gary Novosielski]

I don't' see anything to suggest that there's a difference between the censure offered as an ordinary main motion and the censure imposed by a formal disciplinary hearing..  The two are equivalent in effect, which is nothing--apart from an expression of displeasure on the part of the body imposing it.  I would consider both to be equally "disciplinary".  While there are two different procedures that could result in censure, the  actual censure resulting from either would be the same.

 

If the assembly feels that a member has done something that does not (or could not be proven to) rise to a level demanding more punishment, or simply does not want to go through the bother of more formal procedures, it can simply offer a motion of censure.

 

Conversely, if the assembly feels that formal discipline is warranted, but the process does not  end with a majority favoring anything harsher than censure, they can decide to issue a censure instead, which would be no more disciplinary than in the former case.

[Edgar Guest]

Conversely, if the assembly feels that formal discipline is warranted, but the process does not  end with a majority favoring anything harsher than censure, they can decide to issue a censure instead, which would be no more disciplinary than in the former case.

 

But they're not deciding to censure instead, they're deciding to censure. And while I might not argue that there are two "forms" of censure, I suspect that a decision to censure might carry a bit more weight if it's the result of a formal disciplinary process as opposed to a simple vote expressing displeasure.

[Josh Martin]

I don't' see anything to suggest that there's a difference between the censure offered as an ordinary main motion and the censure imposed by a formal disciplinary hearing..  The two are equivalent in effect, which is nothing--apart from an expression of displeasure on the part of the body imposing it.  I would consider both to be equally "disciplinary".  While there are two different procedures that could result in censure, the  actual censure resulting from either would be the same.

 

If the assembly feels that a member has done something that does not (or could not be proven to) rise to a level demanding more punishment, or simply does not want to go through the bother of more formal procedures, it can simply offer a motion of censure.

 

Conversely, if the assembly feels that formal discipline is warranted, but the process does not  end with a majority favoring anything harsher than censure, they can decide to issue a censure instead, which would be no more disciplinary than in the former case.

 

The fact that there is a different procedure for a censure imposed by a formal disciplinary hearing is important. "A member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground. If thus accused, he has the right to due process—that is, to be informed of the charge and given time to prepare his defense, to appear and defend himself, and to be fairly treated." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 656) A member could not, for instance, use an ordinary main motion to censure a member or officer for lying.

 

So while censure may indeed be used as a lesser penalty when a greater penalty was originally sought, in some cases a member might seek to censure a member or officer and still need to use formal disciplinary procedures because of the reason he wishes to censure him. I also agree with Edgar that a disciplinary censure may be perceived to carry more weight than the non-disciplinary variety.

[bigtom68]

Our chair has been contacted by members before about board members acting out of order and all he says is "I can't do anything about it" if he fails to do his job and the complaint is about our vice chair what do we do then as a board? Is there a chain of command that needs to be followed?

[Edgar Guest]

Is there a chain of command that needs to be followed?

 

This forum works best if you'll post your new question as a new topic.

[bigtom68]

Sorry, will do,thought it was kinda the same topic.