Article XX Section 63 RONR 11th Edition

[Jane Doe]

 

 

Edited August 19, 2020 at 07:34 PM by Jane Doe

[Atul Kapur]

I can't answer that because it involves interpretation of your bylaws, which only your organization can do. I'm not going to dive into your appeal process, nor on the question of whether your board needs to take this to the entire membership, because your bylaws apparently have their own rules which supersede RONR.

However, if you feel that the Board violated the bylaws by terminating her membership in the first place, as you say in the first paragraph, then you or any other member can raise a Point of Order about this at the next membership meeting.

[Jane Doe]

What is a point of order?

And how does a member do that?

 

[Atul Kapur]

Section 23 begins, "When a member thinks that the rules of the assembly are being violated, he can make a Point of Order . . ., thereby calling upon the chair for a ruling and an enforcement of the regular rules." (RONR 11th ed., p. 247, lines 3-7).

You should read that section and the following one on Appeals.

Perhaps a better suggestion would be to obtain and read ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER
NEWLY REVISED In Brief, which can be read in one evening. The description of a Point of Order there begins, "The chair has the duty of making sure that the rules are followed. Any member may call the attention of the chair to a violation of the rules.

"To do so, you stand up, interrupt the chair or a speaker if necessary, and without waiting to be recognized, call out, "Point of order!" Anyone speaking takes a seat, and the chair says, "The member will state her point of order." You then tell how you think the rules are being broken, and sit down."

[Jane Doe]

I see!  Thank you!

 

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Spring Taylor said:

My organization's board accused a member  a member of violating a by-law and, even though the by-law clearly states that for her first offense she should get a warning letter, they terminated her membership.

They advised the member if she wanted to appeal she had to let the Board know.  She immediatly responded that she wanted to appeal the dismissal.  They advised her that since there was nothing in the By-Law's regarding appeals they were going to follow Robert's Rule of Order Newly Revised 11th Ed. Article XX, Section 63 Investigation and Trial.  They decided to appoint a "Trial Committee" to hear the charges and the trial committee was composed of  a majority of members they knew would vote in their favor.  At the trial, the vote was 10-6 to terminate the members membership.  The same board members who voted to remove this member the first time when they sent her the termination letter were allowed to vote again and discuss the charges and explain their reasonings behind wanting her dismissed after she had closed her arguments and was asked to leave the room.  After the member was informed that the vote was 10-6 she asked if, as it states in RONR, if this decision would be taken to the members of the society so they could either vote to uphold that decision or give them member a different penalty.    They stated that since the by-laws state:

It is understood that the above is a list of the most common problems that arise from time to time and are set forth in order for all members to be aware of same.  However, it is also understood that any other disturbance or problems caused by members that would or could result in defacing the image of the organization, its members, guests, the public property of the organization or anything pertaining to same will be subject to a fine or dismissal from the organization to be decided on by the Executive Board or Committee appointed by same.

That they didn't have to take it to the society for a vote.  The member argued that the Board had already made their decision and this "trial" was an appeal of that decision and since the Board reverted to using Article XX, Section 63 they should use that procedure all the way to the end, including taking it to the membership for a vote on the trial committee's findings.  They are flat out refusing to do so.  Are they correct in doing this?

If the bylaws state "It is understood that the above is a list of the most common problems that arise from time to time and are set forth in order for all members to be aware of same.  However, it is also understood that any other disturbance or problems caused by members that would or could result in defacing the image of the organization, its members, guests, the public property of the organization or anything pertaining to same will be subject to a fine or dismissal from the organization to be decided on by the Executive Board or Committee appointed by same," then those rules take precedence over anything RONR says on this subject, and those rules must be followed.

I have not seen the wording of the rule that "the by-law clearly states that for her first offense she should get a warning letter," but that rule will need to be followed as well. To the extent that these provisions, taken together, are ambiguous or in conflict, the society will be the ultimate judge of what the bylaws mean.

The society may also wish to amend the bylaws if the society feels that the bylaws are unclear and/or if the society feels that the bylaws grant too much power to the board in this regard.

Edited August 18, 2020 at 10:48 PM by Josh Martin

[Jane Doe]

 

 

Edited August 19, 2020 at 07:35 PM by Jane Doe

[Josh Martin]

3 minutes ago, Spring Taylor said:

So basically they can say they are using RONR when they lay out the "trial" rules but they don't have to follow them all the way through.  They can use a combined verision of the by-laws and RONR? 

No. Once again, if your bylaws have their own procedures for discipline, those rules take precedence over RONR. The society (or the board) cannot pick between which process to be used - the process in your bylaws must be followed.

I suppose that a "combined" version could be used to some extent, in the sense that the procedures in RONR could be used as guidance, to the extent that the procedures in your bylaws are silent on certain aspects of the process. For example, it is conceivable that a society's bylaws might provide that a "trial" is required but say absolutely nothing about how that trial is conducted, in which event the procedures in RONR may be of assistance. The society (or the board) could not, however, take any action which conflicts with the procedures in your bylaws.

7 minutes ago, Spring Taylor said:

That is where the confusion comes in. They state in one instance to the member there is nothing in the by-laws to cover the appeal of her termination so they are using RONR, then when the member pushes it to go to membership as it states in Article XX, Section 63 they say they don't have to because of the By-Law.  

Yes, I agree that the manner in which the board handled this is extremely confusing.

If the board's claim is that the board had the authority to remove this person under the procedure in the bylaws and that there is no appeal process under the procedure in the bylaws, they should have stuck to their guns on that. The bylaws take precedence over RONR. Nonetheless, the bylaws still take precedence over RONR, notwithstanding the fact that the board (perhaps erroneously) said they are "using RONR" for the disciplinary process.

12 minutes ago, Spring Taylor said:

If they were going to use the By-Laws and send it to a Committee then how did they get to vote at the trial when it says to  .."be decided on by the Executive Board or Committee appointed by same"?  Shouldn't the Committee be the only ones to vote at the "trial"?

As I understand the facts, the matter is to be decided on by the Executive Board or a committee appointed by the board. Whichever of these bodies meets, only members of that body would vote. I would note, however, that there is no reason that the committee could not consist of board members, in whole or in part.

I'd also note that the board and the committee seem to be in agreement on this matter, so there doesn't seem to be much to pursue for a challenge on this grounds.

14 minutes ago, Spring Taylor said:

Section 3.  Any Executive Board member flagrantly neglecting duties of her office or duties assigned to her and/or abusing a member’s personal confidentiality (such as personal communication to the Executive Board by a member or a member’s financial information) will be notified by the remaining members of the Executive Board in writing for the first offense.  If said Executive Board member continues to flagrantly neglect duties of her office or duties assigned to her and/or abusing a member’s personal confidentiality the remaining members will notify the general membership and request a vote to remove said Executive Board member.  If Executive Board member is removed by the general membership, she will return to general membership.

It is understood that the above is a list of the most common problems that arise from time to time and are set forth in order for all members to be aware of same.  However, it is also understood that any other disturbance or problems caused by members that would or could result in defacing the image of the organization, its members, guests, the public property of the organization or anything pertaining to same will be subject to a fine or dismissal from the organization to be decided on by the Executive Board or Committee appointed by same.

Your organization will be the ultimate judge of determining what its bylaws mean in this regard and resolving the apparent ambiguities and conflicts in these sections. It seems that one section might be referring to removal from the Executive Board and one section might be referring to removal from the organization, which might help to resolve the conflict.

As previously noted, the manner in which this interpretation would arise would be for a member, at a meeting of the general membership, to raise a Point of Order that the board's removal of this member was improper and is null and void, stating the reasons why. The chair would rule on this point and provide their reasoning. A member may move to Appeal from the decision of the chair. If this is seconded, the decision would then be in the hands of the assembly. A majority vote is sufficient to overturn the chair's ruling.

It should be noted that the question being decided on appeal is whether the board acted properly under the bylaws in removing the member, not whether members personally agree with the decision to remove the member on its merits.

As previously noted, the society may also wish to amend the bylaws if the society feels that the bylaws are unclear and/or if the society feels that the bylaws grant too much power to the board in this regard.

18 minutes ago, Spring Taylor said:

When she asked what process in RONR they were using for the appeals process they told her Article XX, Section 63.  I just don't understand how they can go back and forth on what they use.

The process in the bylaws is controlling, regardless of any statements the board has made to the contrary.

[Jane Doe]

Thank you, I think I understand what needs to be done to fix the mistake of this Board removing this member. 

Just one quick claificaiton, the chair would be the President since she is the one who presides over the meetings.  Correct?

 

[Atul Kapur]

Yes, "chair" refers to the presiding officer at the meeting.

[Jane Doe]

Thank gentleman!  

 

 

Edited August 19, 2020 at 07:34 PM by Jane Doe

[Atul Kapur]

Please be clear on what grounds you say this is a "rogue board."

From what I see, the termination of her membership appears to have followed the bylaws that you have shared. There didn't seem to be any requirement for the board to offer an appeals process, so they can argue that they were more fair than they had to be by giving her the opportunity to appeal at all.

They may have overstepped in removing her from the board in the first place as it's not clear that they followed Section 3 as you've quoted.

All with the caveat that I haven't seen all your bylaws and, even if I had, I'm not a member so I don't get to interpret them.

[Jane Doe]

Sorry, this is just one of many things they have done.