Charges against the complete Board for prejudicial Conduct

[Guest Tommy]

This is a procedural question on "Charges of Conduct prejudicial against the club".

Recently, our club treasure resigned from her board position.  The actions of this board was detrimental to the club and against the bylaw . She was opposed to to the standing boards conduct.  After she resigned her boiard position, she drafted charges  outlining two flagrant violations  against the entire board .  There are a total of eight members on this board. All board members were charged with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the Club. Our bylaws state ". Any member may prefer charges against a member for alleged misconduct prejudicial to the best interests of the Club". The Bylaws also state "The Secretary shall promptly send a copy of the charges to each Board member or present them at a Board meeting. The Board shall first consider whether the actions alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the Club or the breed. If the Board considers that the charges do not allege conduct which might be prejudicial to the best interest of the Club or the breed, it may refuse to entertain jurisdiction. If the Board entertains jurisdiction of the charges it shall fix a date of a hearing by the Board or a committee of not less than three (3) members of the Board, not less than three (

My Question is with charges filed against the entire board, does the Board itself become judge and jury to the charges filed against them?????

[J. J.]

First, any charge would have to be treated individually, so that charging the entire board should be ruled out of order (see p. 408, ll. 2-6). 

If she wishes to charge members in sequence, she may.  The "board" is not a member. 

[Josh Martin]

10 hours ago, Guest Tommy said:

This is a procedural question on "Charges of Conduct prejudicial against the club".

Recently, our club treasure resigned from her board position.  The actions of this board was detrimental to the club and against the bylaw . She was opposed to to the standing boards conduct.  After she resigned her boiard position, she drafted charges  outlining two flagrant violations  against the entire board .  There are a total of eight members on this board. All board members were charged with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the Club. Our bylaws state ". Any member may prefer charges against a member for alleged misconduct prejudicial to the best interests of the Club". The Bylaws also state "The Secretary shall promptly send a copy of the charges to each Board member or present them at a Board meeting. The Board shall first consider whether the actions alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the Club or the breed. If the Board considers that the charges do not allege conduct which might be prejudicial to the best interest of the Club or the breed, it may refuse to entertain jurisdiction. If the Board entertains jurisdiction of the charges it shall fix a date of a hearing by the Board or a committee of not less than three (3) members of the Board, not less than three (

My Question is with charges filed against the entire board, does the Board itself become judge and jury to the charges filed against them?????

I agree with J.J. that is not in order to file charges against the entire board. In the event that a member charges each of the individual members of the board, it would appear from the facts provided that the board would indeed consider the charges against its own members, assuming there are no other relevant rules in the bylaws on this matter.

If the membership finds this undesirable, perhaps the bylaws should be amended. In the interim, the society could handle this by electing different board members in the regular elections.

[Richard Brown]

11 hours ago, Guest Tommy said:

 . . . Our bylaws state ". Any member may prefer charges against a member for alleged misconduct prejudicial to the best interests of the Club". The Bylaws also state "The Secretary shall promptly send a copy of the charges to each Board member or present them at a Board meeting. The Board shall first consider whether the actions alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the Club or the breed. If the Board considers that the charges do not allege conduct which might be prejudicial to the best interest of the Club or the breed, it may refuse to entertain jurisdiction. If the Board entertains jurisdiction of the charges it shall fix a date of a hearing by the Board or a committee of not less than three (3) members of the Board, . . . .

A question to my colleagues:  To what extent does the foregoing language remove disciplinary action against members from the disciplinary procedures in chapter XX of the 11th edition of RONR?  Or, put another way, to what extent are the disciplinary procedures in chapter XX applicable?

Also, and perhaps more specifically, does it supersede the removal from office provisions of RONR?

What if the bylaw provisions regarding terms of office contain the magic words "or until their successors are elected"?

[Josh Martin]

9 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

A question to my colleagues:  To what extent does the foregoing language remove disciplinary action against members from the disciplinary procedures in chapter XX of the 11th edition of RONR?  Or, put another way, to what extent are the disciplinary procedures in chapter XX applicable?

Also, and perhaps more specifically, does it supersede the removal from office provisions of RONR?

What if the bylaw provisions regarding terms of office contain the magic words "or until their successors are elected"?

It is an interesting question. I am inclined to think that it supersedes the disciplinary procedures in RONR at least to the extent that they relate to discipline of members of the society. Arguably, since the rule appears to relate to preferring charges against a member of the society, the society could still use the disciplinary procedures in RONR to remove an officer from office (assuming the bylaws do not also have language pertaining to that subject). What exactly that disciplinary procedure entails will depend on whether the bylaw provisions regarding term of office contain the words "or until their successors are elected."

Edited May 12, 2020 at 02:57 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

I think that where the bylaws refer to a hearing, the rules related to a trial in RONR, specifically, would apply in the absence of a special rule.

[Guest Tommy]

I would like to restate my question  with clarification as my original facts were incorrect .

Recently, the president of our club preferred charges against the club’s treasurer who resigned the position in January. 

The document from the president, addressed to the club secretary with the charges was written by the president  in the layout below.

 

I am preferring the following charge against the club Secretary 

Charge- misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the club, injuring the good name of the organization, disturbing its wellbeing and hampering it in its work.

Specification-violation of the confidentiality of an executive session held in 2019 while serving as club treasurer.

Specification-code of ethics violation (#8 share knowledge truthfully, constructively and respectfully when conveying information regarding a member or his activities ).  Willful and purposeful misrepresentation with intent to harm with intent to malign the integrity of the club, it’s officers and board of directors.

Specification- purposeful misrepresentation on a club membership application with the intent to comit fraud.

Specification- harassment of the board of directors with accusations predicated upon inaccuracies and falsehoods, readily demonstrated in a email correspondence in March and April.

Specification- purposeful dessemination of falsehood regarding the board.

This document was written by the club president to the club secretary.

After reading this document, My question is:

1),  Is there only one charge against the club member?

2)Are the specification also a charge against the member or a statement of fact to reinforce the charge.

3) could the specifications be converted into charges while in trial?

4)If the specification do not specifically relate to to the written charges, can they be argued or is there a parliamentary procedure to squash the specification during trial?

Background for next situation 

When charges are preferred, our bylaw state the charges will be sent to the board committee to investigate the charges and if this committee concludes possible prejudicial to the club, the charges are sent to trial. 
Question

1)  is there procedural errors and misconduct if the club president, who prefers charges ,  participated  when the investigation committee concluded to proceed to trial. ?

Or in the trial as trial committee chair? Is there recourse?

2)The entire board, as stated in the document with preferred charges, is listed as witness in the alleged misconduct. If the entire board is recorded as witness to testify at trial, is it inappropriate and of procedure error for the entire board to participate in the investigation committee to send charges to trial?  And for the board to be on the trial committee and be witness for prosecution (club president). Is there recourse after the fact ? Is there recourse?

your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

tommy

[Josh Martin]

5 hours ago, Guest Tommy said:

1),  Is there only one charge against the club member?

Looks like it.

5 hours ago, Guest Tommy said:

2)Are the specification also a charge against the member or a statement of fact to reinforce the charge.

Specifications and charges are different things. I wouldn't describe a specification as "a statement of fact to reinforce the charge." RONR defines the two terms in this way:

"A charge sets forth an offense—that is, a particular kind of act or conduct that entails liability to penalty under the governing rules—of which the accused is alleged to be guilty. A specification states what the accused is alleged to have done which, if true, constitutes an instance of the offense indicated in the charge." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 662)

Another way of viewing is that the charge is the general kind of misconduct the board member is accused of and the specifications are the specific acts he is accused of.

5 hours ago, Guest Tommy said:

3) could the specifications be converted into charges while in trial?

No, it is not in order to convert the specifications into charges. They are two different things.

5 hours ago, Guest Tommy said:

4)If the specification do not specifically relate to to the written charges, can they be argued or is there a parliamentary procedure to squash the specification during trial?

Well, first, I would dispute the assertion that the specifications, in this instance, do not specifically relate to the written charges. There is no doubt that each of these specifications, if true, could be considered "misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the club, injuring the good name of the organization, disturbing its wellbeing and hampering it in its work."

In the event this does occur in some other situation, the best course of action would likely be to amend the charges, specifications, or both.

"The specifications or the charge can be amended to conform to facts brought out in the trial—but not in such a way as to find the accused guilty of a charge not wholly included within charge(s) for which he has been tried." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 667)

5 hours ago, Guest Tommy said:

1)  is there procedural errors and misconduct if the club president, who prefers charges ,  participated  when the investigation committee concluded to proceed to trial. ?

Or in the trial as trial committee chair? Is there recourse?

RONR has no answer to this specific question as under the rules in RONR, charges may only be preferred by the society as a whole, not by an individual.

As a general matter, RONR suggests that a person who has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members should abstain from voting or presiding. Whether these particular circumstances constitute such an interest seems to be a judgment call. Even if there is such an interest, a member cannot be compelled to abstain from voting, but the rules could be suspended to remove the President from presiding over a meeting. The assembly is not, however, required to do so.

So no, I do not think there is any recourse after the fact.

5 hours ago, Guest Tommy said:

The entire board, as stated in the document with preferred charges, is listed as witness in the alleged misconduct.

Ah, okay. That's a good clarification. I thought it was the entire board that was being charged.

5 hours ago, Guest Tommy said:

If the entire board is recorded as witness to testify at trial, is it inappropriate and of procedure error for the entire board to participate in the investigation committee to send charges to trial? And for the board to be on the trial committee and be witness for prosecution (club president). Is there recourse after the fact ? Is there recourse?

RONR has no rules on this matter specifically. In any event, it doesn't seem to be an error of procedure for the entire board to do these things under your organization's rules. Indeed, it appears to be required that the board (or a committee of the board consisting entirely of board members) handles these matters. The rule appears to leave which of these options to use at the board's discretion. I don't see any exceptions in the rule. So no, I don't see any recourse.

Perhaps your organization should amend the rules in its bylaws governing disciplinary procedures.

Under the rules in RONR, the society itself appoints the investigative committee, chooses whether to prefer charges, and either hears the trial itself or appoints the trial committee, so the society could take into account factors such as this when appointing the members of the committees. Your organization has adopted its own rules in its bylaws, however, and those rules take precedence.

Edited May 13, 2020 at 02:23 PM by Josh Martin