Who presides over the meeting?

[Guest fredwich]

Our President has been accused of embezzlement. Our Vice President is among the accusers. There has only been an allegation. Who should run the monthly meeting? Nothing in our bylaws addresses this situation. 

[Chris Harrison]

Nothing in RONR would require or suggest anyone other than the President need preside over the meeting for any business not concerning the allegations.  Now, when the issue of the allegations are being considered neither the President (as the accused) nor Vice President (as one of the accusers) should be presiding (RONR pp. 451-453).  If both the President and VP relinquish the chair the assembly should elect a Chair pro tem to preside over the matter.  If one (or both) of them believe they should preside anyway the assembly can Suspend the Rules and elect a Chair pro tem against their objections (RONR pp. 651-653). 

[Josh Martin]

6 hours ago, Guest fredwich said:

Our President has been accused of embezzlement. Our Vice President is among the accusers. There has only been an allegation. Who should run the monthly meeting? Nothing in our bylaws addresses this situation. 

I concur with Mr. Harrison regarding the issue of who should preside over the regular monthly meetings, and regarding who should preside in the event action is taken regarding this matter.

I would also add, however, that embezzlement is a very serious allegation which should not be made lightly. If members truly believe that the President may be guilty of such actions, they should pursue formal disciplinary procedures, but the initial resolution to appoint an investigative committee should avoid specifics as much as possible.

“A member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground. If thus accused, he has the right to due process—that is, to be informed of the charge and given time to prepare his defense, to appear and defend himself, and to be fairly treated.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 656)

”For the protection of parties who may be innocent, the first resolution should avoid details as much as possible. An individual member may not prefer charges, even if that member has proof of an officer's or member's wrongdoing. If a member introduces a resolution preferring charges unsupported by an investigating committee's recommendation, the chair must rule the resolution out of order, informing the member that it would instead be in order to move the appointment of such a committee (by a resolution, as in the example above). A resolution is improper if it implies the truth of specific rumors or contains insinuations unfavorable to an officer or member, even one who is to be accused. It is out of order, for example, for a resolution to begin, "Whereas, It seems probable that the treasurer has engaged in graft, . . ." At the first mention of the word "graft" in such a case, the chair must instantly call to order the member attempting to move the resolution.” (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 657-658)

So instead of referring specifically to embezzlement, the motion to appoint an investigative committee would read more like this (modified as necessary, such as by replacing “Treasurer” with “President”):

“Resolved, That a committee of . . . [perhaps "five"] be elected by ballot to investigate allegations of neglect of duty in office by our treasurer, J.M., which, if true, cast doubt on her fitness to continue in office, and that the committee be instructed, if it concludes that the allegations are well-founded, to report resolutions covering its recommendations.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 657)

It may also be prudent to seek legal counsel.

Edited September 12, 2019 at 09:50 PM by Josh Martin

[Chris Harrison]

54 minutes ago, Chris Harrison said:

Now, when the issue of the allegations are being considered neither the President (as the accused) nor Vice President (as one of the accusers) should be presiding (RONR pp. 451-453).

I should also add that in addition to the Vice President anyone else who are one of the accusers should also avoid being the Chair pro tem since he or she would  not be able to remain impartial while presiding.

Edited September 12, 2019 at 04:26 PM by Chris Harrison

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/12/2019 at 10:54 AM, Guest fredwich said:

Our President has been accused of embezzlement. Our Vice President is among the accusers. There has only been an allegation. Who should run the monthly meeting? Nothing in our bylaws addresses this situation. 

Is this just an offhand accusation, or has anything formal been done or contemplated?  Are there rules in your bylaws regarding disciplinary procedures, or are you proceeding according to RONR Chapter XX?  

[Guest Reply]

Hoping to contain it to the rumor stage. Thank you, everyone, for sharing your knowledge and advice! No reason for us having not applied Chapter XX and will educate all involved!