Must punishable offenses be specified in the bylaws?

[Benjamin Geiger]

Given the current political climate, the question of procedures for handling accusations of sexual harassment within our group has come up. (It should be noted that the discussion is hypothetical at this point, as nobody has been accused.)

As I understand our bylaws, they only contain explicit discipline requirements for violations of the loyalty oath and for excessive absences from meetings.

If (again, hypothetically speaking) we had a member who had sexually harassed someone else, can we specify that as a charge for a trial, or is the lack of a cover-all "members shall not do stuff that makes us look bad" clause in the bylaws going to cause problems?

[Richard Brown]

Based on the first three paragraphs of Section 61 on Discipline, starting on page 643, I don't think it is necessary to have a "do not do stuff that makes us look bad" clause in the bylaws.  I think the last sentence of the third paragraph is telling:  "In any society, behavior of this nature is a serious offense properly subject to disciplinary action, whether the bylaws make mention of it or not."

Note:  That provision might not apply if your bylaws make clear that ONLY the enumerated offenses are grounds for discipline. 

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Based on the first three paragraphs of Section 61 on Discipline, starting on page 643, I don't think it is necessary to have a "do not do stuff that makes us look bad" clause in the bylaws.  I think the last sentence of the third paragraph is telling:  "In any society, behavior of this nature is a serious offense properly subject to disciplinary action, whether the bylaws make mention of it or not."

Note:  That provision might not apply if your bylaws make clear that ONLY the enumerated offenses are grounds for discipline. 

Page 662, ll. 9-17, also gives very broad grounds for disciplinary action and do indicate that these grounds would not have to be in the bylaws.

To overrule this, I think that there would almost have to have a rule saying like, "Only the following offenses shall be grounds for disciplinary action..." and then list what they are.  IMO, unless that type of clause is in the bylaws, an organization with Jerry Sandusky and/or Larry Nassar as a member can remove either (or both) of them from membership. 

[Richard Brown]

4 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Page 662, ll. 9-17, also gives very broad grounds for disciplinary action and do indicate that these grounds would not have to be in the bylaws.

 

Thanks, JJ.  I thought there was another applicable section (the one you cited) but couldn't find it at the time.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

Given the current political climate, the question of procedures for handling accusations of sexual harassment within our group has come up. (It should be noted that the discussion is hypothetical at this point, as nobody has been accused.)

As I understand our bylaws, they only contain explicit discipline requirements for violations of the loyalty oath and for excessive absences from meetings.

If (again, hypothetically speaking) we had a member who had sexually harassed someone else, can we specify that as a charge for a trial, or is the lack of a cover-all "members shall not do stuff that makes us look bad" clause in the bylaws going to cause problems?

Yes, that could be specified as a charge for the trial. RONR already has a cover-all “members shall not do stuff that makes us look bad” clause.

”Frequently, such an article provides for their imposition on any member found guilty of conduct described, for example, as "tending to injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work." In any society, behavior of this nature is a serious offense properly subject to disciplinary action, whether the bylaws make mention of it or not.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 694)