Discipline hearings against an Officer

[Guest Member of a club]

Question 1) An officer of our club has had a grievance filed against them. This is our club's way of handling charges leveled against any member with no specific mention of Oficers/Directors being any different from a regular member in our bylaws. There will be a hearing that will determine guilt or innocence. This hearing will be held in executive session with only the other Officers/Directors deciding the outcome and what if any penalties there will be. According to RROO "After charges are preferred against a member, and the assembly has ordered him to appear for trial, he is theoretically under arrest, and is deprived of all rights of membership and therefore cannot vote until his case is disposed of".  Does this mean that until the actual hearing which may be as long as 6 weeks after charges have been filed, the Officer/Director is no longer a member in good standing? I am confused because it seems that until they are found guilty, their membership privileges and standing as an Officer/Director should be as is until a guilty verdict is or is not decided. Assuming the grievance process is followed as per our bylaws, should the Officer/Director be allowed to attend Board meetings and vote on club matters until the hearing?

Question 2) Our bylaws also state "Charges. Any member may bring charges against a fellow member for alleged misconduct prejudicial to the best interests of the Club. The grievance committee will attempt to arbitrate a solution between the two parties. If after 20 days of the receipt of the charges there is no resolution, the Member that is bringing the charges may request that the Board consider whether the actions alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the Club."  My question is if the person filing charges does not want arbitration or mediation but the person charged does, does the process still have to wait for 20 days or can the next step of the process proceed? 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Your organization will have to provide the details on its disciplinary procedures.

[Guest Member of a club]

Below is an edited part of our club's bylaws for grievances.  The edited parts are not relevant to the process. 

Charges. Any member may bring charges against a fellow member for alleged misconduct prejudicial to the best interests of the Club.  The Secretary shall promptly send a copy of the charges to the Director assigned as #2 and the grievance/ethics committee. The committee will attempt to arbitrate a solution between the two parties. If after 20 days of the receipt of the charges there is no resolution, the Member that is bringing the charges may request that the BOD consider whether the actions alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the Club. If the Board considers that the charges do not allege conduct which would be prejudicial to the best interests of the Club, it may refuse to entertain jurisdiction. If the Board entertains jurisdiction for the charges, it shall fix a date of a hearing by the Board or a committee of not less than six members of the Board, not less than three weeks or more that six weeks thereafter. The Secretary shall promptly send one copy of the charges to the accused member by certified mail, together with a notice of the hearing, an assurance that the defendant may personally appear in his own defense, and an acceptance for bringing witnesses on his or her behalf.

Board Hearing. The Board of Directors or Board committee, of not less than 6 directors shall have complete authority to decide whether counsel may attend the hearing, but both complainant and defendant shall be treated uniformly in that regard. Should the charges be sustained after hearing all the evidence and testimony presented by complainant and defendant, the Board or Board committee may by a majority vote of those present reprimand or suspend the defendant from all privileges of the Club. Suspension may not last longer than a calendar year. Immediately after the Board or Board committee has reached a decision; its finding shall be put in written form and filed with the Secretary. The Secretary, in turn, shall notify each of the parties of the decision and penalty, if any.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Ultimately it is up to your organization to interpret its rules.

[Joshua Katz]

39 minutes ago, Guest Member of a club said:

Does this mean that until the actual hearing which may be as long as 6 weeks after charges have been filed, the Officer/Director is no longer a member in good standing? I am confused because it seems that until they are found guilty, their membership privileges and standing as an Officer/Director should be as is until a guilty verdict is or is not decided. Assuming the grievance process is followed as per our bylaws, should the Officer/Director be allowed to attend Board meetings and vote on club matters until the hearing?

Per RONR, the loss of rights does not occur until charges have been preferred by the organization itself. A person complaining is not enough to deprive someone of rights, but those rights are temporarily suspended when the organization prefers charges.

Your process assigns all discipline to the board, though, so the organization cannot prefer charges. Only your organization can interpret your bylaws, but I can think of 2 ways to understand this. It could be that, since the organization does not prefer charges, the rights are never suspended. Or it could be that from the time the board decides to "entertain jurisdiction." Your organization will have to decide which follows from your bylaws.

But stay tuned for other answers.

43 minutes ago, Guest Member of a club said:

My question is if the person filing charges does not want arbitration or mediation but the person charged does, does the process still have to wait for 20 days or can the next step of the process proceed? 

 

7 minutes ago, Guest Member of a club said:

The committee will attempt to arbitrate a solution between the two parties. If after 20 days of the receipt of the charges there is no resolution, the Member that is bringing the charges may request that the BOD consider whether the actions alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the Club.

So far as I can see from what has been provided, I don't see that it matters what anyone wants. I would read this as saying that the committee will attempt to arbitrate, no matter what they want. But certainly I don't think the person raising the complaint could eliminate the 20 day period unilaterally.

I have trouble understanding what these bylaws are trying to do, to be honest. When a person violates organization rules, the victim is the organization. So why arbitrate with someone who complains about it? But that's what the rules say.

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Per RONR, the loss of rights does not occur until charges have been preferred by the organization itself. A person complaining is not enough to deprive someone of rights, but those rights are temporarily suspended when the organization prefers charges.

Joshua, that is close but not exactly.  Both the 11th and 12 editions of RONR say that the assembly MAY suspend some or all of the accused rights pending the outcome of the trial.  Prior to the 11th edition, the member's rights were suspended automatically, but that changed in the 11th edition.  Here is the pertinent language from Section 63:26 of the new 12th edition:

63: 26 A resolution preferring charges may (although it need not) be accompanied by one suspending all or some specified portion of the accused’s authority, rights, and duties as an officer or rights as a member (except those rights that relate to the trial) pending disposition of the case, effective from the time official notification of the resolution is delivered to the accused’s address.

So, the suspending of the member's rights pending trial is not automatic, but is something the society can do with the adoption of a resolution specifically suspending some or all of his rights as a member pending the outcome of the trial.

[Atul Kapur]

3 hours ago, Guest Member of a club said:

According to RROO "After charges are preferred against a member, and the assembly has ordered him to appear for trial, he is theoretically under arrest, and is deprived of all rights of membership and therefore cannot vote until his case is disposed of".

This language is from Rules of Order Revised, 4th edition, published in 1915. The current edition is Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition. The 4th edition is the latest that is in the public domain so is widely available on the internet, but is severely out of date. You should get the current edition unless your bylaws specify the 4th (I truly hope that they do not).

Mr. Brown has quoted the relevant paragraph from the current edition. Note that it is drastically different than the one you quote.

3 hours ago, Guest Member of a club said:

Assuming the grievance process is followed as per our bylaws, should the Officer/Director be allowed to attend Board meetings and vote on club matters until the hearing?

What you've shared of the bylaws is silent on the member's or officer's rights after charges have been filed, so you would then refer to your parliamentary authority. If it is the current edition of RONR, then the member's rights are preserved.

It's an interesting concept in your bylaws. The initial grievance appears to be commenced because of a disagreement between two members and the club, for reasons that I don't understand, wants to place itself between the two members. Only if that fails does the club consider the standard of whether the charges, if true, "would be prejudicial to the best interests of the club." Sounds to me like you're inviting a lot of grievances for purely inter-personal conflicts. But they're your bylaws, so you can do what you want.

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

So, the suspending of the member's rights pending trial is not automatic, but is something the society can do with the adoption of a resolution specifically suspending some or all of his rights as a member pending the outcome of the trial.

Good catch. I think the other side still works, though - the society may not do so, absent something contrary in the bylaws, until charges have been preferred.

[Guest Member of a club]

Many thanks to all for your responses.