Accusations, investigate, trial.

[Quest]

A member is about to ask for removal of a member based on decisions and actions taken about 6 years ago while he served as president. The event is common knowledge and may or may not should have been challenged back then but the board supported the action. Now he serves as VP appointed by the president and board approved. Frankly this is bazaar. but I am uncertain how to respond. 

The member intends to bring a list of complaints all historical and debatable, to our next board meeting and hand out the accusations and request for removal. I suspect he expects to make a motion and attempt a 'trial' of sorts as a debate and get a vote....this is terribly wrong but I need clear guidance on how to respond.

A motion to adopt RR's was tabled and would be revisited in an event requires it to answer. Our Bylaws state a member can be removed with 2/3 RDS vote but is silent on investigating or trial. Sure need guidance on this.

Edited May 15, 2020 at 11:50 PM by Quest

[Atul Kapur]

My first advice is that, for the protection of your organization and the people involved, you want to get professional advice before the event (a professional parliamentarian and/or a lawyer).

Carefully read Chapter XX of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) 11th edition. Even if you have not adopted it, it does cover important principles that should commonly apply.

For example:

Quote

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., p. 657, line 30 -  p. 658, line 10)

Other excerpts which may be useful:

"A society has the right to investigate the character of its members and officers as may be necessary to the enforcement of its own standards. But neither the society nor any member has the right to make public any information obtained through such investigation; if it becomes common knowledge within the society, it should not be revealed to any persons
outside the society. Consequently, a trial must always be held in executive session, as must the introduction and consideration of all resolutions leading up to the trial."

"For the protection both of the society and of its members and officers, however, the basic steps which, in any organization, make up the elements of fair disciplinary process should be understood"

 

[Quest]

Thank you..at a brief reading at this point this member handing out a list of accusations to the board should not be allowed....Am I correct in that at least in theory?

 

Edited May 16, 2020 at 12:36 AM by Quest

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Quest said:

Thank you..at a brief reading at this point this member handing out a list of accusations to the board should not be allowed....Am I correct in that at least in theory?

Yes, so far as RONR is concerned. The first step in the disciplinary procedures in RONR is to appoint an investigative committee, and at that stage, specifics should be avoided as much as possible.

I would note, however, that you say your bylaws “state a member can be removed with 2/3 RDS vote but is silent on investigating or trial.” It may be that, under the rules in your bylaws, no investigation or trial is required.

Edited May 16, 2020 at 01:42 AM by Josh Martin

[Weldon Merritt]

50 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I would note, however, that you say your bylaws “state a member can be removed with 2/3 RDS vote but is silent on investigating or trial.” It may be that, under the rules in your bylaws, no investigation or trial is required.

I agree that this is a distinct possibility. But it may be wise to consult with a parliamentarian or a lawyer (or both) before proceeding.