Member not adhering to duties

[Mrs. Robilotto]

If the By Laws do not outline disciplinary actions and a member is repeatably not adhering to the "Duties of Members" with their conduct which is resulting in other members withdrawing their membership from an Auxiliary, is the Executive Board unable to withdraw membership from the offending member? The offending member is the previous year's President and has intimidated and bullied during her tenure as President to have things done her way. Inclusive of not adhering to the existing bylaws on how to modify the bylaws resulting in the bylaws being modified from "full disclosure to all members" of proposed modifications to the bylaws to and bylaws being modified by vote of a quorum of those in attendance only. 

Many of the members who have dropped membership are those who attempted to uphold the existing bylaws by requesting proper notification to all members. 

So, as the current Board, what disciplinary action can apply to the offending member since membership has decreased and those remaining are intimidated to vote against the past year's President?

[Chris Harrison]

If there indeed are no provisions for discipline and this person is now just a member of the General Membership (no longer a Board member) you all will need to hold a full fledged trial (in a meeting of the General Membership) and it is a pretty in-depth process.  See RONR pp. 654-668 for details.  If she is still a Board member and you intent is remove her from the Board it may be a simpler task depending on how the bylaws define the term of office.  See RONR pp. 653-654.

[Josh Martin]

35 minutes ago, Mrs. Robilotto said:

If the By Laws do not outline disciplinary actions and a member is repeatably not adhering to the "Duties of Members" with their conduct which is resulting in other members withdrawing their membership from an Auxiliary, is the Executive Board unable to withdraw membership from the offending member?

Yes, the Executive Board is unable to expel the member. If the bylaws are silent on discipline, the power to take such actions rests with the membership of the society, not the Executive Board. See Ch. XX of RONR for more information.

37 minutes ago, Mrs. Robilotto said:

Inclusive of not adhering to the existing bylaws on how to modify the bylaws resulting in the bylaws being modified from "full disclosure to all members" of proposed modifications to the bylaws to and bylaws being modified by vote of a quorum of those in attendance only. 

 Many of the members who have dropped membership are those who attempted to uphold the existing bylaws by requesting proper notification to all members. 

Are you saying that in the process of adopting this amendment, the required notice for bylaws amendments was not given? If so, the amendment is null and void.

38 minutes ago, Mrs. Robilotto said:

So, as the current Board, what disciplinary action can apply to the offending member since membership has decreased and those remaining are intimidated to vote against the past year's President?

None, but the society itself may take such action (assuming they can get over the intimidation).

31 minutes ago, Chris Harrison said:

If she is still a Board member and you intent is remove her from the Board it may be a simpler task depending on how the bylaws define the term of office.  See RONR pp. 653-654.

Just to be clear, however, it is still the general membership which would have to take such action if the bylaws are silent on discipline. (Unless the board elects its own officers.)

[Richard Brown]

Agreeing with Mr. Harrison (and with Mr. Martin, who posted his response as I was typing mine), disciplinary procedures can be very complex and technical, more so than we can fully explain in this forum.  I strongly urge you to get a copy of the current 11th edition of RONR and study the disciplinary procedures in Chapter XX.  It's 26 pages of detailed procedures regarding discipline.

From what you have said, however it isn't clear to me that there is the will among the membership to actually do anything to rein in this "rogue" member.  If she was able to persuade the required number of members to agree to unwise bylaw amendments, it looks like, for whatever reason, the members may not be willing to stand up to her.  If the few who were willing to stand up to her have resigned their memberships, it may be even more difficult to do anything about it.  The membership has to be willing to take action.  Is it?

Also, unless authorized in your bylaws, it is doubtful that your executive board has the authority to impose discipline on a regular member.  Unless your executive board is granted that power in your bylaws, it is up to the membership, not the executive board, to impose discipline... especially discipline as strong as suspension or expulsion. Every organization does have the inherit right to discipline its own members, but there are restrictions as to how and by whom (by which body) discipline may be imposed.

You may want to consider talking one on one with a parliamentarian who can assist you.  Both AIP (the American Institute of Parliamentarians)  and NAP (The National Association of Parliamentarians) have referral services and can also refer you to a local parliamentary unit if there is one near you.  NAP is the larger of the two organizations and has more local units.  Both groups have websites.

Finally, I do have two or three questions:  Have your bylaws actually been amended so that future amendments can be adopted by a majority vote of the members in attendance at a meeting?   Was that amendment properly adopted.... i.e., were proper procedures followed in adopting it?  Finally, Can you quote for us the exact wording of the current bylaw provision on amending the bylaws?  Please quote it exactly, don't paraphrase.

Edited February 11, 2019 at 06:12 PM by Richard Brown
Edited the first sentence

[Mrs. Robilotto]

Richard Brown -

I will have to obtain the current bylaws from my home office as I am at work. However, the bylaws which followed Robert's Rules were not adhered to the current bylaws were written, submitted and approved by a majority vote. In fact, the previous president who did this and is now causing issues went to the extent of calling all members on the roster and placing those members (who paid their dues) on the inactive list for the sole cause of not having attended the previous meeting prior to the vote . This reducing of membership, failure to notify all members in writing 1 month prior to the vote, and insisting that only attending members can vote on the subject allowed for the bylaws to by modified. 

In my thought process, these actions actually make the current bylaws invalid/null & void. But I'm new to this issue as previous groups, clubs, auxiliaries have never had this type of issue. 

I will post the current bylaws once I pull the membership book from my desk at home. 

[Josh Martin]

5 hours ago, Mrs. Robilotto said:

I will have to obtain the current bylaws from my home office as I am at work. However, the bylaws which followed Robert's Rules were not adhered to the current bylaws were written, submitted and approved by a majority vote. In fact, the previous president who did this and is now causing issues went to the extent of calling all members on the roster and placing those members (who paid their dues) on the inactive list for the sole cause of not having attended the previous meeting prior to the vote . This reducing of membership, failure to notify all members in writing 1 month prior to the vote, and insisting that only attending members can vote on the subject allowed for the bylaws to by modified. 

In my thought process, these actions actually make the current bylaws invalid/null & void. But I'm new to this issue as previous groups, clubs, auxiliaries have never had this type of issue. 

Assuming the bylaws required one month of notice for amendments, failure to provide that notice, in and of itself, is enough to make the amendments null and void. I also concur that improperly declaring members to be inactive, to the extent that such action would affect this matter, would also be grounds to declare the amendments null and void, and in any event is sufficient to make these changes in membership status null and void.

[Guest Zev]

9 hours ago, Mrs. Robilotto said:

...placing those members (who paid their dues) on the inactive list for the sole cause of not having attended the previous meeting prior to the vote.

I have trouble believing that an organization would have in their bylaws a provision allowing the single person of the president the discretion of performing such an act. If true, it is absolutely astonishing. If not, then it is time for a swift kick in the you know what.