Guest Marge Posted September 25, 2019 at 03:13 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2019 at 03:13 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted September 25, 2019 at 05:00 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2019 at 05:00 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marge Posted September 25, 2019 at 07:59 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2019 at 07:59 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted September 25, 2019 at 08:09 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2019 at 08:09 PM 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marge Posted September 25, 2019 at 11:17 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2019 at 11:17 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted September 26, 2019 at 01:25 PM Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 at 01:25 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted September 26, 2019 at 10:17 PM Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 at 10:17 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts