confidentiality of charges and sharing info with the society

[Bryce Sullivan]

On Page 655, Lines 12-15, in §63 on Investigations and Trial, RONR says:
"If (after trial) a member is expelled or an officer is removed from office, the society has the right to disclose that fact—circulating it only to the extent required for the protection of the society or, possibly, of other organizations. Neither the society nor any of its members has the right to make public the charge of which an officer or member has been found guilty, or to reveal any other details connected with the case."

It seems like there are situations where the society membership would have a need to know the charges or some details of them. For example, a beloved president might be found guilty of charges that are not known by the society's membership since all trial proceedings were held in executive session. The knowledge of the fact that he or she was found guilty may not satisfy the membership's interest in knowing why the president was found guilty. Is there a process in RONR to allow the charges or some part of the charges to be shared with members of the society? I suppose a motion could be made to allow for some information to be shared, but I wonder if anyone has experience in the best way to accomplish this while protecting the individual and the best interests of the society. After guilt is established it would seem that the interests of the society take some precedence. 

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Bryce Frederick said:

On Page 655, Lines 12-15, in §63 on Investigations and Trial, RONR says:
"If (after trial) a member is expelled or an officer is removed from office, the society has the right to disclose that fact—circulating it only to the extent required for the protection of the society or, possibly, of other organizations. Neither the society nor any of its members has the right to make public the charge of which an officer or member has been found guilty, or to reveal any other details connected with the case."

It seems like there are situations where the society membership would have a need to know the charges or some details of them. For example, a beloved president might be found guilty of charges that are not known by the society's membership since all trial proceedings were held in executive session. The knowledge of the fact that he or she was found guilty may not satisfy the membership's interest in knowing why the president was found guilty. Is there a process in RONR to allow the charges or some part of the charges to be shared with members of the society? I suppose a motion could be made to allow for some information to be shared, but I wonder if anyone has experience in the best way to accomplish this while protecting the individual and the best interests of the society. After guilt is established it would seem that the interests of the society take some precedence. 

The trial will be conducted either before the membership's full assembly or before a trial committee which will report to the membership's full assembly.

[Chris Harrison]

The members have a right to review the minutes of the meeting when the trial was held even if it was in Executive Session (RONR p. 460 ll. 13-17).  If the trial was held by the Board the General Membership can order the minutes read (RONR p. 487 ll. 13-20).  The minutes shouldn't provide a whole lot of detail but they should include the charges and specifications and the assembly's findings.  These rights exist even if the member wasn't at the meeting when the trial was held.

[Dan Honemann]

Well, under the rules in RONR it is the membership's assembly that prefers charges and, if the defendant is found guilty, imposes the penalty, and so there obviously is no need for "a process in RONR to allow the charges or some part of the charges to be shared with members of the society." 

[Bryce Sullivan]

Ok, thanks. It appears I didn't spell out some of the needed details.

The larger Society has a Board that acts for them. The Board (which is a deliberative assembly of the larger Society) is where the trial of the President would occur. The individual charged could admit to guilt thus avoiding a trial. But it is the Board's deliberations which would be held in executive session occurred. Therefore, the Society at large would not have access to the minutes from executive session except by a 2/3 vote per RONR. 

I'm traveling and don't have my RONR with me, but from my notes I have this: By a two-thirds vote, the society's general membership can order the reading of the subsidiary board's minutes at a meeting of the general membership (See RONR p. 487, l. 15). If this action is taken by the larger society, the board meeting minutes must be read in an executive session of the society’s meeting as well. 

 

[Dan Honemann]

If this society has a board that is empowered to act for its membership in disciplinary proceedings it must be because it has adopted its own rules specifically conferring such authority on its board. In such an event, I think these rules must be carefully examined to see if they shed any light on the question you have posed.

[Richard Brown]

Perhaps I'm misreading what is in RONR, but i don't read the provision Mr. Frederick quoted from page 655 as a prohibition against members of a society from knowing what the charge was that resulted in the removal or discipline of the officer.  The prohibition in RONR seems to me to be clearly aimed at making those facts public.

I agree, however, that that is a separate issue from the fact that the trial itself is conducted by a disciplinary or trial committee in executive session and therefore the regular membership might not be privy to it.  It still seems to me that the trial committee can voluntarily share the information with the membership and that the membership can direct that the information be made available to (or at least read to) the members.  The members would be required to maintain the confidentiality of the information unless unless an appropriate body votes to remove the secrecy or to make the information public.

[Bryce Sullivan]

Sounds right. I supposed in a large Society, even letting the membership know something could be akin to making the information public. 

[Dan Honemann]

22 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Perhaps I'm misreading what is in RONR, but i don't read the provision Mr. Frederick quoted from page 655 as a prohibition against members of a society from knowing what the charge was that resulted in the removal or discipline of the officer.  The prohibition in RONR seems to me to be clearly aimed at making those facts public.

Under the rules in RONR, the members of the society are the ones who preferred the charges.

[J. J.]

10 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Under the rules in RONR, the members of the society are the ones who preferred the charges.

RONR does envision the possibility of a separate disciplinary committee, which would charge (p. 669).

The society could, in that case, get the charges and disposition by the vote needed to discharge a committee, or if the committee would authorize their release (o. 4867, ll. 13-20, and a nice cross footnote, BTW).  This may be the type of situation Mr. Frederick is envisioning.

[Gary Novosielski]

9 hours ago, Bryce Frederick said:

On Page 655, Lines 12-15, in §63 on Investigations and Trial, RONR says:
"If (after trial) a member is expelled or an officer is removed from office, the society has the right to disclose that fact—circulating it only to the extent required for the protection of the society or, possibly, of other organizations. Neither the society nor any of its members has the right to make public the charge of which an officer or member has been found guilty, or to reveal any other details connected with the case."

It seems like there are situations where the society membership would have a need to know the charges or some details of them. For example, a beloved president might be found guilty of charges that are not known by the society's membership since all trial proceedings were held in executive session. The knowledge of the fact that he or she was found guilty may not satisfy the membership's interest in knowing why the president was found guilty. Is there a process in RONR to allow the charges or some part of the charges to be shared with members of the society? I suppose a motion could be made to allow for some information to be shared, but I wonder if anyone has experience in the best way to accomplish this while protecting the individual and the best interests of the society. After guilt is established it would seem that the interests of the society take some precedence. 

Ordinarily, the membership does have full knowledge of the charges since it is they who (typically) vote on expulsion.  The language you quoted has much more to do with circulating the information publicly outside of the society.

[Sean Hunt]

Perhaps an aside: Is there a paragraph where RONR defines that even when the board has the full powers of the assembly of the society, it is not empowered to take disciplinary action?

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Sean Hunt said:

Perhaps an aside: Is there a paragraph where RONR defines that even when the board has the full powers of the assembly of the society, it is not empowered to take disciplinary action?

Not in so many words, but it does say that the maximum penalty that a board may impose upon a disorderly member is to require him to leave the meeting room for the remainder of the meeting.