RONR 63:2 and RONR 63:9

[puzzling]

RONR 63:2 requires a trial must always be held in executive session, as must the introduction  and consideration off all resolutions leading up to the trial.

RNOR 63:9 ( that is if I presume correctly the introduction mentioned in 63:2) mentions 

a member may, at a time when no nonmembers are present offer a resolution to appoint an investigating Committee.

Must I interpretate this as 

a) that the motion in 63:9  can be made outside an executive session (63:9 overruling 63:2)

or

b) that the motion can only be made during an executive session where no nonmembers are present (63:9 adding to 63:2) 

or c) something else.

[Josh Martin]

On 9/14/2022 at 4:47 AM, puzzling said:

RONR 63:2 requires a trial must always be held in executive session, as must the introduction  and consideration off all resolutions leading up to the trial.

RNOR 63:9 ( that is if I presume correctly the introduction mentioned in 63:2) mentions 

a member may, at a time when no nonmembers are present offer a resolution to appoint an investigating Committee.

Must I interpretate this as 

a) that the motion in 63:9  can be made outside an executive session (63:9 overruling 63:2)

or

b) that the motion can only be made during an executive session where no nonmembers are present (63:9 adding to 63:2) 

or c) something else.

"Consequently, a trial must always be held in executive session, as must the introduction and consideration of all resolutions leading up to the trial." RONR (12th ed.) 63:2

"Accordingly, if the rules of the organization do not otherwise provide for the method of charge and trial, a member may, at a time when nonmembers are not present, offer a resolution to appoint an investigating committee." RONR (12th ed.) 63:9

I suppose the question hinges upon whether a motion to appoint an investigative committee is viewed as a "resolution leading up to the trial." I can see reasonable arguments that it either is or is not. I am also somewhat puzzled as to the rule in 63:9, which, if taken literally, would seem to suggest that the motion is not in order if any nonmembers are present, which is inconsistent with the general rules pertaining to executive session (which provides that the assembly may permit certain nonmembers by rule or by specific invitation).

My best guess is that the intent was that the assembly may appoint an investigative committee if no nonmembers are present and that an executive session is not specifically required, although I think some clarification in the rule would be desirable so that there are allowances for the assembly to permit particular nonmembers to be present, similar to the rules for executive session.

I would add that, in my opinion, an executive session for these matters would still be advisable.

[George Mervosh]

On 9/14/2022 at 10:42 AM, Josh Martin said:

"Consequently, a trial must always be held in executive session, as must the introduction and consideration of all resolutions leading up to the trial." RONR (12th ed.) 63:2

"Accordingly, if the rules of the organization do not otherwise provide for the method of charge and trial, a member may, at a time when nonmembers are not present, offer a resolution to appoint an investigating committee." RONR (12th ed.) 63:9

I suppose the question hinges upon whether a motion to appoint an investigative committee is viewed as a "resolution leading up to the trial." I can see reasonable arguments that it either is or is not. I am also somewhat puzzled as to the rule in 63:9, which, if taken literally, would seem to suggest that the motion is not in order if any nonmembers are present, which is inconsistent with the general rules pertaining to executive session (which provides that the assembly may permit certain nonmembers by rule or by specific invitation).

I'm puzzled as well, because, as per 63:30, the assembly can allow a non-member to act as defense counsel, which seems entirely consistent with the general rules relating to executive session, but then in the same section, RONR states that a non-member witness may only be present while testifying (no exceptions stated).  

It seems that these specific rules relating to the disciplinary process apply as written, so I think that is how I would proceed.

[Atul Kapur]

I'm a bit surprised by your surprise, because I don’t see a parallel. The non-member witness is only there for one purpose, to provide testimony. No real need or benefit to the organization or the defendant to have them there any longer than needed.

Allowing non-member defence counsel, on the other hand, gives the defendant the fullest opportunity to mount the best defence possible.

Edited September 15, 2022 at 09:07 PM by Atul Kapur

[puzzling]

I still hope on a reaction from one of the authors. 

was a bit puzzling 

On 9/14/2022 at 3:42 PM, Josh Martin said:

I suppose the question hinges upon whether a motion to appoint an investigative committee is viewed as a "resolution leading up to the trial." I can see reasonable arguments that it either is or is not.

what are the arguments that it is not a "resolution up to the trial" ?

maybe the idea is that the motion can be made when there are no nonmember present or the meeting is in executive session  but that the consideration of this motion has to be done in executive session.  but sadly that is not what 63:9 says so that cannot be the case.

 

[puzzling]

bump hope we will get an answer of one of the authors on how to interprete this

 

[Dan Honemann]

If I recall correctly, the language in 63:2 requiring that "the introduction and consideration of all resolutions leading up to the trial" must be held in executive session first appeared in the 11th ed.  Prior thereto, the requirement of executive session related only to trials, and the related proceedings "should" be held when no nonmembers are present. 

In my opinion, 63:2 means exactly what it says.  63:9 is not inconsistent with this.