roberth Posted November 3, 2018 at 11:26 AM Report Share Posted November 3, 2018 at 11:26 AM Assume that our bylaws say, in relation to an expulsion meeting, "This meeting will be conducted in the same manner as other meetings of the church and not in accordance with the Discipline provisions of Robert's Rules of Order." Can we ignore those provisions in Chapter XX? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted November 3, 2018 at 12:05 PM Report Share Posted November 3, 2018 at 12:05 PM Well... that is a little tricky. What do your bylaws say IS the procedure for expulsion? (Or are you making this up ["assume"] as you go along?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roberth Posted November 3, 2018 at 12:57 PM Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2018 at 12:57 PM 46 minutes ago, jstackpo said: Well... that is a little tricky. What do your bylaws say IS the procedure for expulsion? (Or are you making this up ["assume"] as you go along?) At present, they provide for at least two weeks notice to all members and a special meeting. We are considering changing them to add the wording I "assumed" in order to avoid the burdensome requirements of Chapter XX if an expulsion case should ever arise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted November 3, 2018 at 01:09 PM Report Share Posted November 3, 2018 at 01:09 PM I suppose if you are going to specifically do away with the provisions of Chapter XX you will need to come up with some procedures for holding an expulsion meeting. Will it be treated the same as any other motion? What will be the vote required for expelling someone? Majority vote? Two-thirds? Majority of the entire Membership? Assuming you don't have many cases where you may need to give someone the heave-ho why not just keep the procedures in Chapter XX rather than reinventing the wheel (and it is almost inevitable that something will come up that wasn't anticipated)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roberth Posted November 3, 2018 at 01:11 PM Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2018 at 01:11 PM At present, they provide for at least two weeks notice to all members and a special meeting. We are considering changing them to add the wording that I "assumed" in order to avoid the burdensome requirements of Chapter XX if an expulsion case should ever arise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roberth Posted November 3, 2018 at 01:22 PM Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2018 at 01:22 PM At present, expulsion requires a 75% affirmative vote. The procedure is clear, except that the bylaws do not specifically say how the meeting is to be conducted. We would like to avoid the "trial" aspects and simply have a motion to expel, discussion, and a vote. I was hoping that the propose language would make that possible. "This meeting will be conducted in the same manner as other meetings of the church and not in accordance with the Discipline provisions of 'Robert's Rules of Order." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted November 3, 2018 at 02:13 PM Report Share Posted November 3, 2018 at 02:13 PM Well, take a look at pp. 574 for a way to phrase bylaws that will allow you to bypass Chapter 20. May be just what you are looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted November 3, 2018 at 02:32 PM Report Share Posted November 3, 2018 at 02:32 PM (edited) Actually, I think the language he might want to use would be something similar to that which is found in RONR (11th ed.), on pages 653-54 regarding removal of an officer from office under certain circumstances. His bylaws might say something to the effect that, at the special meeting called for such a purpose, members may be expelled from membership simply by the adoption of a motion to do so, without trial, and specify the vote required for adoption of such a motion (which, we are told, they already do). Edited November 3, 2018 at 03:10 PM by Daniel H. Honemann Decided to expand on the suggested language just a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted November 3, 2018 at 03:15 PM Report Share Posted November 3, 2018 at 03:15 PM Looks to me that p. 574 and pp. 653-4 go hand in hand. The page 574 material (new to the 11th edition) serves as an expansion of the more concise material on 653-4. They both present the same rule, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted November 3, 2018 at 04:44 PM Report Share Posted November 3, 2018 at 04:44 PM 1 hour ago, jstackpo said: Looks to me that p. 574 and pp. 653-4 go hand in hand. The page 574 material (new to the 11th edition) serves as an expansion of the more concise material on 653-4. They both present the same rule, of course. The language suggested on page 574 relates entirely to removal of officers from office, and cannot be adjusted in any way to relate to expulsion from membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roberth Posted November 3, 2018 at 05:32 PM Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2018 at 05:32 PM "At the special meeting called for such a purpose, members may be expelled from membership simply by the adoption of a motion to do so, without trial, by a 75% affirmative vote." Sounds good to me, and I'm very grateful for all your help. Is there agreement that this would safely bypass Chapter 20? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted November 3, 2018 at 06:40 PM Report Share Posted November 3, 2018 at 06:40 PM 1 hour ago, roberth said: "At the special meeting called for such a purpose, members may be expelled from membership simply by the adoption of a motion to do so, without trial, by a 75% affirmative vote." Sounds good to me, and I'm very grateful for all your help. Is there agreement that this would safely bypass Chapter 20? Well, at least I think so, absent something else in the bylaws indicating otherwise. 🙂 Whenever there is any conflict between the rules in the bylaws and the rules in RONR, the rules in the bylaws prevail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted November 3, 2018 at 06:41 PM Report Share Posted November 3, 2018 at 06:41 PM 1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: The language suggested on page 574 relates entirely to removal of officers from office, and cannot be adjusted in any way to relate to expulsion from membership. Oops, right. I misread "expulsion" by (mentally) adding "from office" in the original. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted November 3, 2018 at 10:24 PM Report Share Posted November 3, 2018 at 10:24 PM There is the possibility that once the chairman states the question on expulsion that the first member recognized may move the Previous Question and the main motion voted on without specifications being read or the accused being afforded a chance to defend himself. I am not entirely satisfied with a seventy-five percent threshold absent fairness. The procedures, what you called "burdensome requirements," in RONR are those procedures that ensure the fair treatment of any accused. Summary, or near-summary, expulsions are highly suspicious. A certain psychological climate of fear and uncertainty can also be a product of such a process, each person knowing that they may be dealt with in this way. If the entire church does not wish to endure these events, an alternative is to conduct all trials in a Disciplinary Committee and the committee making its recommendations to the assembly. The procedures in RONR can be followed, and the accused allowed to defend himself. I urge you not to conduct expulsions by way of main motions without standard trials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts