Guest johm macro Posted November 11, 2016 at 03:49 PM Report Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 03:49 PM can a member of a club sue that club and remain a member in good standing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted November 11, 2016 at 03:56 PM Report Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 03:56 PM Sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted November 11, 2016 at 04:45 PM Report Share Posted November 11, 2016 at 04:45 PM ... provided the club rules have nothing to say on the subject. RONR doesn't have anything to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted November 12, 2016 at 02:04 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2016 at 02:04 PM RONR (11th ed.), p. 6n: "Members in good standing are those whose rights as members of the assembly are not under suspension as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 12, 2016 at 02:18 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2016 at 02:18 PM 32 minutes ago, Transpower said: RONR (11th ed.), p. 6n: "Members in good standing are those whose rights as members of the assembly are not under suspension as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws." Yes, and I think a case could certainly be made that suing the society was sufficient cause for removal from membership: Quote Although ordinary societies seldom have occasion to discipline members, an organization or assembly has the ultimate right to make and enforce its own rules, and to require that its members refrain from conduct injurious to the organization or its purposes. No one should be allowed to remain a member if his retention will do this kind of harm. [RONR §61, emphasis added] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted November 13, 2016 at 02:58 PM Report Share Posted November 13, 2016 at 02:58 PM Agreed, but suppose that the member is suing the organization because he thinks that it is not fulfilling its mission.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted November 13, 2016 at 05:02 PM Report Share Posted November 13, 2016 at 05:02 PM 2 hours ago, Transpower said: Agreed, but suppose that the member is suing the organization because he thinks that it is not fulfilling its mission.... Supposing so, then what, do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted November 13, 2016 at 08:45 PM Report Share Posted November 13, 2016 at 08:45 PM Sure, the society can remove the member, but it has to actually do it. I took the question to ask if the member automatically loses rights simply upon filing the lawsuit. If the question had specified that the organization has taken disciplinary action, then my answer would be different. I think Transpower raises an interesting question. More generally - what if the member sues the organization to make it better, not worse? Maybe more organizations need whistle-blower clauses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 13, 2016 at 11:16 PM Report Share Posted November 13, 2016 at 11:16 PM 2 hours ago, Godelfan said: Sure, the society can remove the member, but it has to actually do it. I took the question to ask if the member automatically loses rights simply upon filing the lawsuit. If the question had specified that the organization has taken disciplinary action, then my answer would be different. I think Transpower raises an interesting question. More generally - what if the member sues the organization to make it better, not worse? Maybe more organizations need whistle-blower clauses. I think the member would have to be in the minority in his ideas on what would make the society better. or it would be a trivial matter to correct the behavior of the society by ordinary parliamentary means. It would certainly be problematic if the plaintiff in a lawsuit were able debate and vote on the defendant's decisions on whether and how to settle the suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted November 13, 2016 at 11:20 PM Report Share Posted November 13, 2016 at 11:20 PM 1 minute ago, Gary Novosielski said: I think the member would have to be in the minority in his ideas on what would make the society better. or it would be a trivial matter to correct the behavior of the society by ordinary parliamentary means. It would certainly be problematic if the plaintiff in a lawsuit were able debate and vote on the defendant's decisions on whether and how to settle the suit. True, but that can be resolved by means short of taking away their membership. Certainly they would be expected to recuse themselves, as settling a lawsuit against the organization is, if not the definition of an interest not in common with the others, a bright-line example of it. The member only needs to be in the minority if the organization is properly and fairly applying parliamentary procedure. Perhaps the lawsuit has to do with its failure to apply those principles fairly and properly. Who knows? I sure don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest president Posted November 19, 2016 at 12:49 PM Report Share Posted November 19, 2016 at 12:49 PM the lawsuit was regarding an injury on the property Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted November 20, 2016 at 11:59 AM Report Share Posted November 20, 2016 at 11:59 AM 23 hours ago, Guest president said: the lawsuit was regarding an injury on the property Well. that opens a whole new kettle of worms. GPN -- sufficient grounds still, or maybe, not-so-fast? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted November 20, 2016 at 02:44 PM Report Share Posted November 20, 2016 at 02:44 PM If the organization has building insurance, then the insurance company would pay the damages, not the organization per se. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted November 20, 2016 at 10:12 PM Report Share Posted November 20, 2016 at 10:12 PM The member would have the right to sue the organization unless the By-laws specifically states something else. As for removing a member who is suing the organization, unless the organization can show that this member is intentionally using a lawsuit to do harm to the organization, then this could potentially do more harm than good. Sometimes a lawsuit is required to deal with a problem and this does not necessarily mean that a member is intentionally trying to do harm - I'd even argue that it could be the organization who is trying to do harm, especially if it removes the member prior to a final resolution with regards to the lawsuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 25, 2016 at 08:55 PM Report Share Posted November 25, 2016 at 08:55 PM (edited) It's not just "doing harm" that's the criterion. It's doing harm to the organization. Even though an insurance company may be paying, a claim can raise the premium, causing financial "harm" to the organization. I'd say that the organization has the right to protect itself from revealing information about the case beyond what is required. If the plaintiff or claimant was a member of the board, and the situation was complicated, I'd have a problem with that state of affairs. If the claimant was a member of the general membership, and the board conducted it's its deliberations in executive session, and the situation was straightforward, there would be substantially less of a problem. Clearly a plaintiff has a pecuniary interest not common (in fact, in opposition) to other members, and should not vote. Depending on the facts, I can foresee some cases where doing nothing would be appropriate, and others where removal from membership, or suspension from membership until final disposition of the case, would be within the rights of the society to consider. Edited to add: Perhaps my views are colored by my experience on a publicly elected school board, where among the statutory qualifications for membership were that the candidate or member shall not be a party to any lawsuit against or contract with the board. It seems a good rule to me and I think the self-preservation language in RONR is flexible enough to allow for enforcing something like that when the facts appear to require it. Edited November 26, 2016 at 07:42 PM by Gary Novosielski spelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted November 25, 2016 at 11:53 PM Report Share Posted November 25, 2016 at 11:53 PM Depending on the circumstances of the case and the laws of the jurisdiction involved and on the terms of applicable insurance policies, it might be necessary to sue the organization in order for the insurance company to be obligated to pay. This is a legal question as much as it is a question about parliamentary procedure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted November 29, 2016 at 04:09 AM Report Share Posted November 29, 2016 at 04:09 AM On 11/25/2016 at 6:53 PM, Richard Brown said: Depending on the circumstances of the case and the laws of the jurisdiction involved and on the terms of applicable insurance policies, it might be necessary to sue the organization in order for the insurance company to be obligated to pay. This is a legal question as much as it is a question about parliamentary procedure. Richard, thanks for this - it is exactly what I was trying to say. On 11/25/2016 at 3:55 PM, Gary Novosielski said: It's not just "doing harm" that's the criterion. It's doing harm to the organization. Even though an insurance company may be paying, a claim can raise the premium, causing financial "harm" to the organization. I'd say that the organization has the right to protect itself from revealing information about the case beyond what is required. If the plaintiff or claimant was a member of the board, and the situation was complicated, I'd have a problem with that state of affairs. If the claimant was a member of the general membership, and the board conducted it's its deliberations in executive session, and the situation was straightforward, there would be substantially less of a problem. Clearly a plaintiff has a pecuniary interest not common (in fact, in opposition) to other members, and should not vote. And this is exactly why I have an issue with RONR not requiring a member with an interest in an issue not being involved in discussion or vote to abstain from voting or being involved in debating any motion dealing with the issue. Then again, and organization could adopt a By-law to that effect. Failing either a change in the next addition of RONR or a By-law to the contrary though, I would question why a member should be removed from office for doing something that the By-laws and RONR essentially allow the member to do. Is that ethical? Probably not, but that's not what we are discussing. But, while the organization may have to pay higher premiums, insurance is there to protect the organization and the premiums are a lot less than the potential financial loss if the premium is not there. And depending on the issue, we have to look at the specifics around any insurance claim. If there was something the organization could have done to mitigate damage, then any financial loss resulting from the higher premiums is the fault of the organization, not the individual member - for example, if the member slipped on ice and the organization did not salt the ground, or take other actions to remove the salt, then the organization is to blame for the member slipping on ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 29, 2016 at 12:56 PM Report Share Posted November 29, 2016 at 12:56 PM 8 hours ago, Rev Ed said: And this is exactly why I have an issue with RONR not requiring a member with an interest in an issue not being involved in discussion or vote to abstain from voting or being involved in debating any motion dealing with the issue. Then again, and organization could adopt a By-law to that effect. Failing either a change in the next addition of RONR or a By-law to the contrary though, I would question why a member should be removed from office for doing something that the By-laws and RONR essentially allow the member to do. Is that ethical? Probably not, but that's not what we are discussing. RONR does not require this for two reasons, I think: Historical reasons - As I understand the facts, members of the House of Representatives were not (and still are not, I believe) required to abstain on the grounds of having a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members. RONR is principally based on these procedures, modified only as necessary to adapt to the needs of ordinary societies. Practical reasons - What constitutes a "personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members" is often ambiguous. As a result, if it was required to abstain in such cases, ambiguous cases would need to be decided, on the spot, by the chair or the assembly, which has its own problems. Under the rules in RONR, a member makes these judgment calls for himself. RONR is clear, however, that a member should not vote when he has a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members. Furthermore, RONR makes it clear that a member may be removed for any "conduct which is injurious to the organization." The society is not limited to removing members for behaviors which RONR prohibits or which the text states that members should not do. As you note, a society is free to adopt its own rules on this subject if it wishes to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts