President on trial, who chairs the meeting?

[Guest Guest]

Subject says it all.  RONR reference?

thnx

[Chris Harrison]

The President should turn over the chair to the VP (RONR p. 451 ll. 29-35).  If he doesn't do so willingly the assembly can (and should) take the decision out of his hands (see Official Interpretation 2006-2).

[Guest gues]

The President should turn over the chair to the VP (RONR p. 451 ll. 29-35).  If he doesn't do so willingly the assembly can (and should) take the decision out of his hands (see Official Interpretation 2006-2).

 

Thank you for the reply... if the VP is presiding, and we do a ballot vote, my understanding is he does get to vote. right?  since this meeting is to dicuss charges and discipline the prez, the prez does not get a vote no matter what. right?

[Richard Brown]

Thank you for the reply... if the VP is presiding, and we do a ballot vote, my understanding is he does get to vote. right?  since this meeting is to dicuss charges and discipline the prez, the prez does not get a vote no matter what. right?

If the vote is by ballot, all members who are present get to vote unless their rights as members have been suspended due to pending disciplinary action.   When the vote is by ballot, the presiding officer votes along with everyone else.  RONR p 414, lines 25-27.

 

RONR says on page 667 that "the accused must leave the room" after closing arguments.  I take this to mean that the accused does not get to vote, but I don't see where RONR says so explicitly.   RONR p 667, lines 3-4.  Also, on page 668 at lines 13-14, RONR says that "After voting is completed, the accused is called badk into the hall and advised of the result". 

[George Mervosh]

If the vote is by ballot, all members who are present get to vote unless their rights as members have been suspended due to pending disciplinary action.   When the vote is by ballot, the presiding officer votes along with everyone else.  RONR p 414, lines 25-27.

 

RONR says on page 667 that "the accused must leave the room" after closing arguments.  I take this to mean that the accused does not get to vote, but I don't see where RONR says so explicitly.   RONR p 667, lines 3-4.  Also, on page 668 at lines 13-14, RONR says that "After voting is completed, the accused is called badk into the hall and advised of the result". 

 

RONR (11th ed.), p. 662 notes  "A resolution preferring charges may (although it need not) be accompanied by one suspending all or some specified portion of the accused's authority, rights, and duties as an officer or rights as a member (except those rights that relate to the trial) pending disposition of the case, effective from the time official notification of the resolution is delivered to the accused's address."

 

In the 10th edition, p. 637, once he's notified of the charges, all his rights as a member (except those related to the trial) were suspended.

 

Either way, I don't see how voting at his own trial is one of those rights.

[SaintCad]

I think I brought this up last week on a similar question and the consensus was that nothing in RONR requires the President to give up the chair during their trial.  I assume the VP takes the chair when they leave as per p667.

[Josh Martin]

I think I brought this up last week on a similar question and the consensus was that nothing in RONR requires the President to give up the chair during their trial.  I assume the VP takes the chair when they leave as per p667.

 

The President should relinquish the chair for his trial, since it is a question in which he has a personal interest not in common with other members, and he will (presumably) wish to speak in his own defense. If the President refuses to relinquish the chair, the assembly can (and probably should) suspend the rules to remove him from the chair, which requires a 2/3 vote.

 

I concur that the VP would take the chair when the President leaves the room after the closing arguments, but I can't imagine why the assembly would let the President preside over his own trial in the first place.

[Richard Brown]

In addition to Josh's comments above about the president relinquishing the chair when he is the accused, see my post # 4 above.  RONR provides that the accused must leave the room after closing arguments.  Though that doesn't say directly that the president cannot preside if he is the accused, it seems pretty clear to me that the intent is that he should not preside if he must leave the room during the deliberations. 

[SaintCad]

The President should relinquish the chair for his trial, since it is a question in which he has a personal interest not in common with other members, and he will (presumably) wish to speak in his own defense. If the President refuses to relinquish the chair, the assembly can (and probably should) suspend the rules to remove him from the chair, which requires a 2/3 vote.

 

I concur that the VP would take the chair when the President leaves the room after the closing arguments, but I can't imagine why the assembly would let the President preside over his own trial in the first place.

BUT should does not mean must and except for leaving the room during deliberations, RONR does not automatically require the chair to give up their position during their own trial.  RONR does not always require best practices.

[George Mervosh]

BUT should does not mean must and except for leaving the room during deliberations, RONR does not automatically require the chair to give up their position during their own trial.  RONR does not always require best practices.

 

With a little care this would be a non-issue.

 

"A resolution preferring charges may (although it need not) be accompanied by one suspending all or some specified portion of the accused's authority, rights, and duties as an officer or rights as a member (except those rights that relate to the trial) pending disposition of the case, effective from the time official notification of the resolution is delivered to the accused's address."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 662 

 

In my view, properly done, this will remove his duty to preside at the trial.

 

If the society isn't careful, a 2/3 vote will remove him from his presiding duty, whether he likes it or not.

[Guest Guest]

We recently voted to remove the president from the board. He delayed the process for several weeks and word had gotten out among non-board members of the situation. When he realized that the jig was up, he offered his resignation (which was not accepted). I am now tasked with writing a memo to inform the members of the the outcome. How much detail am I allowed to provide regarding the charges, defense, and ultimate decision?  Any guidance would be much appreciated! Thank you.

[Josh Martin]

We recently voted to remove the president from the board. He delayed the process for several weeks and word had gotten out among non-board members of the situation. When he realized that the jig was up, he offered his resignation (which was not accepted). I am now tasked with writing a memo to inform the members of the the outcome. How much detail am I allowed to provide regarding the charges, defense, and ultimate decision?  Any guidance would be much appreciated! Thank you.

 

RONR notes that no information may be disclosed outside of the society except for the fact the President was removed from office, and even then, this should be disclosed only to the extent that it is necessary to protect the society or other societies. No other information can be disclosed at all.

 

RONR provides no guidance on what information should or should not be disclosed inside the society. It's entirely at the board's discretion how much information to release to the members of the society.

[Guest Guest]

It sounds like the board may decide to send an email blast to all league members, informing them of the charges and outcome against the former president. However, the same information cannot be posted on the website or be otherwise accessible to the public. Thanks for your help!