Committees for discipline, or to hear a trial

[Guest Marge]

If a matter came up that would require a committee for either an investigation, or discipline, or to hear a trial,  can those committees contain the accused or the accuser?

Maybe I’m looking in the wrong place, or perhaps I’m not reading the text correctly, but these questions and their answers don’t seem clear to me.

It would seem that they should not contain the accused,  but I am uncertain about the one who does the accusing.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Marge said:

If a matter came up that would require a committee for either an investigation, or discipline, or to hear a trial,  can those committees contain the accused or the accuser?

Maybe I’m looking in the wrong place, or perhaps I’m not reading the text correctly, but these questions and their answers don’t seem clear to me.

It would seem that they should not contain the accused,  but I am uncertain about the one who does the accusing.

No rule in RONR explicitly prohibits either of these things. It is ultimately up to the society to determine who shall serve on these committees. I think it would, however, be extremely unusual to appoint the accused to such committees.

I would note that RONR does not use the term “accuser.” RONR grants no special status to the person who originally raises claims against another member. I can see reasonable arguments for and against including such a person on disciplinary committees, and it may well depend on the specifics of the particular case.

[Guest Marge]

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

No rule in RONR explicitly prohibits either of these things. It is ultimately up to the society to determine who shall serve on these committees. I think it would, however, be extremely unusual to appoint the accused to such committees.

I would note that RONR does not use the term “accuser.” RONR grants no special status to the person who originally raises claims against another member. I can see reasonable arguments for and against including such a person on disciplinary committees, and it may well depend on the specifics of the particular case.

That is surprising to me, that no rules exist. I’d think it would be difficult for someone who had charges brought against them to be objective when making decisions about their own investigation, discipline, or trial.

[George Mervosh]

6 minutes ago, Guest Marge said:

That is surprising to me, that no rules exist. I’d think it would be difficult for someone who had charges brought against them to be objective when making decisions about their own investigation, discipline, or trial.

Well, the investigative committee reports to the society's assembly, so they are not the final arbiter of the matter.  Do your bylaws spell out how special committees are appointed?  

[Guest Marge]

3 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

Well, the investigative committee reports to the society's assembly, so they are not the final arbiter of the matter.  Do your bylaws spell out how special committees are appointed?  

It just says they might be appointed by the Board, as needed.

[Josh Martin]

17 hours ago, Guest Marge said:

That is surprising to me, that no rules exist. I’d think it would be difficult for someone who had charges brought against them to be objective when making decisions about their own investigation, discipline, or trial.

Yes, I think so too. But the assembly decides who to appoint, so the assembly can simply not appoint the accused.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/25/2019 at 3:59 PM, Guest Marge said:

That is surprising to me, that no rules exist. I’d think it would be difficult for someone who had charges brought against them to be objective when making decisions about their own investigation, discipline, or trial.

So do I, which is why it's hard to imagine a majority would agree to putting that person on the committee.  Sometimes RONR tends to rely on the wisdom of the assembly.