Removal from office

[Confused29]

I've been doing my best to read RONR 12, but I haven't been able to find an answer to this situation.

Hypothetically there is a situation where Officer A had been working on preparing charges against Officer B for dereliction of duties and violating club rules (and possibly state laws). While he was preparing his written charges we had a membership meeting and Officer B was nominated to run for Officer A's office in the upcoming election. Now that the charges have been submitted and are moving forward to trial the remaining board members are telling Officer A they can't vote on the charges due to RONR 45:4. However if Officer A & B are required to abstain there aren't enough votes to meet the Bylaws minimum vote requirement for removal from office.

In this situation is it valid to have Officer A abstain? Would it be possible to appoint someone vote in his place? Could the members vote on whether they believe 45:4 applies to this situation?

As a member, not an officer, would i be able to represent charges on the most severe issues in the future allowing Officer A to vote? Or would it be prevented by double jeopardy?

While I don't have anything personal against Officer B, we hypothetically have them on video violating state law on club property. How else could this be properly handled?

Edited March 25, 2021 at 07:40 PM by Confused29

[George Mervosh]

I'm confused.  Putting aside abstaining for a moment, are you saying one member preferred charges against another?  If so, that's not permitted under the rules in RONR.  It may be proper under your group's rules, but not RONR.

[Confused29]

7 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

I'm confused.  Putting aside abstaining for a moment, are you saying one member preferred charges against another?  If so, that's not permitted under the rules in RONR.  It may be proper under your group's rules, but not RONR.

One board member (Officer A) preferred charges against another board member (Officer B).

Are board members not allowed to preferr charges against another board member?

[George Mervosh]

9 minutes ago, Confused29 said:

One board member (Officer A) preferred charges against another board member (Officer B).

Are board members not allowed to preferr charges against another board member?

No and that goes for any member of the society, not just board members.  See RONR (12th ed.), 63:11.  Start at 63:7 for the full details of the steps in a fair disciplinary process.

Edited March 25, 2021 at 08:05 PM by George Mervosh

[Richard Brown]

13 minutes ago, Confused29 said:

Are board members not allowed to preferr charges against another board member?

Not pursuant to the rules in RONR. However, if your organization has its own disciplinary procedures set out in its bylaws and other rules, then your own provisions would prevail over those in RONR. What exactly do your bylaws and other rules say about “preferring charges“ against a member?

The disciplinary procedures in RONR are rather complex and much too difficult to explain in a simple post. It is far better that you obtain a copy of the current 12th edition of RONR and read those provisions for yourself.  Disciplinary procedures are in chapter XX.

[Confused29]

10 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

No and that goes for any member of the society, not just board members.  See RONR (12th ed.), 63:11.  Start at 63:7 for the full details of the steps in a fair disciplinary process.

Thank you for pointing me in that  direction. After reading 63:11 i believe i over simplified my original description of the  situation.

Charges were written up by Officer A, submitted to the board per our bylaws, the board reviewed and agreed there was substance to move forward on the majority of charges, the board conducted an investigation, and is now moving forward to a trial at an executive meeting. The steps taken follows our bylaws and provides the due process and confidentiality outlined in RONR. With that my question is just about the forced abstention.

 

[George Mervosh]

1 minute ago, Confused29 said:

Thank you for pointing me in that  direction. After reading 63:11 i believe i over simplified my original description of the  situation.

Charges were written up by Officer A, submitted to the board per our bylaws, the board reviewed and agreed there was substance to move forward on the majority of charges, the board conducted an investigation, and is now moving forward to a trial at an executive meeting. The steps taken follows our bylaws and provides the due process and confidentiality outlined in RONR. With that my question is just about the forced abstention.

Okay.  If the procedures outlined in your bylaws were exactly followed you're good to go and in my view I see no reason why Officer A should abstain.

[Richard Brown]

7 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

Okay.  If the procedures outlined in your bylaws were exactly followed you're good to go and in my view I see no reason why Officer A should abstain.

I agree.

[Atul Kapur]

63:33(e) says that the accused must leave the room while the discussion and vote occur.

There is no such requirement on any other member, including the member who brought the charges forward in the first place.

[Confused29]

Thank you both, and i apologize for my vague initial description. I've never seen a more welcoming forum on the internet!

The argument being made by the other board members is that per 45:4 Officer A has a "...direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members..." by the fact Officer B who is on trial is running against Office A for the same office. Is there a definition of "personal interest" available or what argument would you make against this claim?

 

 

[George Mervosh]

6 minutes ago, Confused29 said:

Thank you both, and i apologize for my vague initial description. I've never seen a more welcoming forum on the internet!

The argument being made by the other board members is that per 45:4 Officer A has a "...direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members..." by the fact Officer B who is on trial is running against Office A for the same office. Is there a definition of "personal interest" available or what argument would you make against this claim?

Just have them read the last sentence in 45:4 and call it a day.  If they don't understand that sentence you'll never convince them.  Also show them Dr. Kapur's citation of 63:33 e) regarding officer B.

Edited March 25, 2021 at 08:45 PM by George Mervosh

[Richard Brown]

19 minutes ago, Confused29 said:

The argument being made by the other board members is that per 45:4 Officer A has a ". ..direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members..." by the fact Officer B who is on trial is running against Office A for the same office

First, I agree completely with the responses by Mr. Mervosh and Dr. Kapur.  However, even if it can be construed that Officer A has a "direct or pecuniary interest not common with other members", I point out that 45:4 is a "should" rule, not a "must" rule, and that the section concludes with the statement that "no member can be be compelled to refrain from voting in such situations".  So, even if Officer A should abstain (and I agree with Mr. Mervosh and Dr. Kapur that he should not), he cannot be compelled to abstain.

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, Confused29 said:

Now that the charges have been submitted and are moving forward to trial the remaining board members are telling Officer A they can't vote on the charges due to RONR 45:4.

This is false. No one is required to do anything under the rule in question.

"No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances."

4 hours ago, Confused29 said:

However if Officer A & B are required to abstain there aren't enough votes to meet the Bylaws minimum vote requirement for removal from office.

Are you certain? How exactly is the minimum requirement worded?

4 hours ago, Confused29 said:

In this situation is it valid to have Officer A abstain?

That is at Officer A's discretion.

4 hours ago, Confused29 said:

Would it be possible to appoint someone vote in his place?

No.

4 hours ago, Confused29 said:

Could the members vote on whether they believe 45:4 applies to this situation?

No. Member A will decide whether it applies, at least for now.

If the members feel strongly enough about it, they can pursue disciplinary action against Member A. But they can't prevent him from voting.

4 hours ago, Confused29 said:

As a member, not an officer, would i be able to represent charges on the most severe issues in the future allowing Officer A to vote?

Member A is allowed to vote in any event.

As to the other part of your question, I'm not sure what your bylaws provide regarding discipline, but if it is in fact the case that both the board and the membership have disciplinary authority in this regard, the membership is free to pursue this matter in the future.

4 hours ago, Confused29 said:

Or would it be prevented by double jeopardy?

There is no "double jeopardy" rule in RONR.

4 hours ago, Confused29 said:

While I don't have anything personal against Officer B, we hypothetically have them on video violating state law on club property. How else could this be properly handled?

I'm not sure. I don't know what your bylaws say about discipline.

3 hours ago, Confused29 said:

The argument being made by the other board members is that per 45:4 Officer A has a "...direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members..." by the fact Officer B who is on trial is running against Office A for the same office. Is there a definition of "personal interest" available or what argument would you make against this claim?

The wording is intentionally vague because it can't possibly cover every situation. It is up to Officer A's best judgment to determine if he has a "direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members" to the extent that he should not vote on this matter.