Section 63

[Louise]

Is this understanding of Section 63 correct:

A resolution to appoint an investigating committee into the conduct or character of a member can only be made at a membership meeting. (i.e., not a board meeting, as the board doesn't have the authority to do this on their own, although a board member, as a member of the society, could bring forward the resolution at a membership meeting).

And this would apply also to a board member's conduct or character, since the membership elects the board and as a result is the body with the authority to remove (or discipline) its members.

 

[Josh Martin]

On 10/31/2022 at 11:28 AM, Louise said:

A resolution to appoint an investigating committee into the conduct or character of a member can only be made at a membership meeting. (i.e., not a board meeting, as the board doesn't have the authority to do this on their own, although a board member, as a member of the society, could bring forward the resolution at a membership meeting).

Yes, assuming that RONR is all that is controlling on this matter and that the organization's bylaws are silent regarding discipline.

On 10/31/2022 at 11:28 AM, Louise said:

And this would apply also to a board member's conduct or character, since the membership elects the board and as a result is the body with the authority to remove (or discipline) its members.

Not necessarily. While it is certainly correct (in the absence of anything in the bylaws providing otherwise) that "since the membership elects the board and as a result is the body with the authority to remove (or discipline) its members," removing board members may or may not require the formal disciplinary procedures in Section 63.

"Except as the bylaws may provide otherwise, any regularly elected officer of a permanent society can be removed from office by the society's assembly as follows:

• If the bylaws provide that officers shall serve “for __ years or until their successors are elected,” the officer in question can be removed from office by adoption of a motion to do so. The vote required for adoption of this incidental main motion is (a) a two-thirds vote, (b) a majority vote when previous notice (as defined in 10:44) has been given, or (c) a vote of a majority of the entire membership—any one of which will suffice. A motion to remove an officer from office is a question of privilege (19) affecting the organization of the assembly, and so also is the filling of any vacancy created by the adoption of such a motion. 

• If, however, the bylaws provide that officers shall serve only a fixed term, such as “for two years” (which is not a recommended wording; see 56:28), or if they provide that officers shall serve “for __ years and until their successors are elected,” an officer can be removed from office only for cause—that is, neglect of duty in office or misconduct—in accordance with the procedures described in 63; that is, an investigating committee must be appointed, charges must be preferred, and a formal trial must be held." RONR (12th ed.) 62:16

"Because the significant difference in effect between the use of “and” and “or” is unlikely to be clear to most members, it may be desirable (although it is not essential) to add an explanatory sentence, such as:

• For the first alternative: “Officers may be removed from office for cause by disciplinary proceedings as provided in the parliamentary authority.”

• For the second alternative: “Officers may be removed from office at the pleasure of the membership as provided in the parliamentary authority.”" RONR (12th ed.) 56:30

In any event, however, motions for removal of board members (whatever the appropriate motions are) would be made at a meeting of the membership, provided that RONR is all that is controlling. The authority to discipline board members rests with the membership unless the bylaws provide otherwise.

The one slight exception to this is that, in the event of misconduct occurring during a board meeting, the board has the authority to remove the board member for the duration of the meeting, but cannot impose a harsher penalty than that.

"The executive board of an organized society operates under the society's bylaws, the society's parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules of the society which may be applicable to it. Such a board may adopt its own special rules of order or standing rules only to the extent that such rules do not conflict with any of the rules of the society listed above. It may protect itself against breaches of order by its members during board meetings, and against annoyance by nonmembers, by employing the procedures outlined in 61:10–21, but the maximum penalty which may be imposed upon a disorderly member of the board is that he be required to leave the meeting room during the remainder of the meeting." RONR (12th ed.) 49:15

Edited October 31, 2022 at 09:10 PM by Josh Martin

[Louise]

On 10/31/2022 at 3:06 PM, Josh Martin said:

Yes, assuming that RONR is all that is controlling on this matter and that the organization's bylaws are silent regarding discipline.

Understood.

On 10/31/2022 at 3:06 PM, Josh Martin said:

Not necessarily. While it is certainly correct (in the absence of anything in the bylaws providing otherwise) that "since the membership elects the board and as a result is the body with the authority to remove (or discipline) its members," removing board members may or may not require the formal disciplinary procedures in Section 63.

"Except as the bylaws may provide otherwise, any regularly elected officer of a permanent society can be removed from office by the society's assembly as follows:

• If the bylaws provide that officers shall serve “for __ years or until their successors are elected,” the officer in question can be removed from office by adoption of a motion to do so. The vote required for adoption of this incidental main motion is (a) a two-thirds vote, (b) a majority vote when previous notice (as defined in 10:44) has been given, or (c) a vote of a majority of the entire membership—any one of which will suffice. A motion to remove an officer from office is a question of privilege (19) affecting the organization of the assembly, and so also is the filling of any vacancy created by the adoption of such a motion. 

• If, however, the bylaws provide that officers shall serve only a fixed term, such as “for two years” (which is not a recommended wording; see 56:28), or if they provide that officers shall serve “for __ years and until their successors are elected,” an officer can be removed from office only for cause—that is, neglect of duty in office or misconduct—in accordance with the procedures described in 63; that is, an investigating committee must be appointed, charges must be preferred, and a formal trial must be held." RONR (12th ed.) 62:16

"Because the significant difference in effect between the use of “and” and “or” is unlikely to be clear to most members, it may be desirable (although it is not essential) to add an explanatory sentence, such as:

• For the first alternative: “Officers may be removed from office for cause by disciplinary proceedings as provided in the parliamentary authority.”

• For the second alternative: “Officers may be removed from office at the pleasure of the membership as provided in the parliamentary authority.”" RONR (12th ed.) 56:30

In any event, however, motions for removal of board members (whatever the appropriate motions are) would be made at a meeting of the membership, provided that RONR is all that is controlling. The authority to discipline board members rests with the membership unless the bylaws provide otherwise.

The bylaws include the "or until their successors are elected" clause. 

On 10/31/2022 at 3:06 PM, Josh Martin said:

The one slight exception to this is that, in the event of misconduct occurring during a board meeting, the board has the authority to remove the board member for the duration of the meeting, but cannot impose a harsher penalty than that.

"The executive board of an organized society operates under the society's bylaws, the society's parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules of the society which may be applicable to it. Such a board may adopt its own special rules of order or standing rules only to the extent that such rules do not conflict with any of the rules of the society listed above. It may protect itself against breaches of order by its members during board meetings, and against annoyance by nonmembers, by employing the procedures outlined in 61:10–21, but the maximum penalty which may be imposed upon a disorderly member of the board is that he be required to leave the meeting room during the remainder of the meeting." RONR (12th ed.) 49:15

Thank you for confirming my understanding.

One more question regarding Section 63: Is it a majority vote of the membership that is required to form an Investigating Committee and to impose penalties (if it gets to that point)? Or is it "(a) a two-thirds vote, (b) a majority vote when previous notice (as defined in 10:44) has been given, or (c) a vote of a majority of the entire membership"?

 

[Josh Martin]

On 11/1/2022 at 11:01 AM, Louise said:

The bylaws include the "or until their successors are elected" clause. 

In that event, board members may be removed as follows, and the formal disciplinary procedures in Section 63 will not be required:

"If the bylaws provide that officers shall serve “for __ years or until their successors are elected,” the officer in question can be removed from office by adoption of a motion to do so. The vote required for adoption of this incidental main motion is (a) a two-thirds vote, (b) a majority vote when previous notice (as defined in 10:44) has been given, or (c) a vote of a majority of the entire membership—any one of which will suffice. A motion to remove an officer from office is a question of privilege (19) affecting the organization of the assembly, and so also is the filling of any vacancy created by the adoption of such a motion." RONR (12th ed.) 62:16

On 11/1/2022 at 11:01 AM, Louise said:

One more question regarding Section 63: Is it a majority vote of the membership that is required to form an Investigating Committee and to impose penalties (if it gets to that point)? Or is it "(a) a two-thirds vote, (b) a majority vote when previous notice (as defined in 10:44) has been given, or (c) a vote of a majority of the entire membership"?

In regard to removal of board members, because the organization's bylaws serve or until their successors are elected, the formal disciplinary procedure in RONR are not required, and therefore it is not required "to form an investigative committee." Motions to remove a board member, as previously noted, will require "(a) a two-thirds vote, (b) a majority vote when previous notice (as defined in 10:44) has been given, or (c) a vote of a majority of the entire membership""

If the organization's bylaws instead were written in such a manner that formal disciplinary procedures were required for discipline of board members, then a majority vote would be required both for forming an investigative committee and in regard to imposing discipline, including removal from office.

In regard to discipline of members of the society, motions to form an investigative committee require only a majority vote for adoption. Imposing penalties generally requires only a majority vote for adoption, but a 2/3 vote is required to expel a member from the society.

"Punishments that a society can impose generally fall under the headings of censure, fine (if authorized in the bylaws), suspension, or expulsion. The extreme penalty that an organization or society can impose on a member is expulsion." RONR (12th ed.) 61:2

"The usual possible penalties for an officer are censure or removal from office, although in special circumstances others may be appropriate (for example, to repay into the society's treasury funds that the officer has been found guilty of misappropriating, perhaps with an added fine). For all of these, including removal from office, a majority vote is required. Penalties appropriate in disciplinary proceedings against members are discussed in 61:2. For expulsion, a two-thirds vote is required." RONR (12th ed.) 63:33(e)

Edited November 1, 2022 at 05:20 PM by Josh Martin

[Louise]

On 11/1/2022 at 11:17 AM, Josh Martin said:

In that event, board members may be removed as follows, and the formal disciplinary procedures in Section 63 will not be required:

Understood. Thank you.

On 11/1/2022 at 11:17 AM, Josh Martin said:

If the organization's bylaws instead were written in such a manner that formal disciplinary procedures were required for discipline of board members, then a majority vote would be required both for forming an investigative committee and in regard to imposing discipline, including removal from office.

In regard to discipline of members of the society, motions to form an investigative committee require only a majority vote for adoption. Imposing penalties generally requires only a majority vote for adoption, but a 2/3 vote is required to expel a member from the society.

"Punishments that a society can impose generally fall under the headings of censure, fine (if authorized in the bylaws), suspension, or expulsion. The extreme penalty that an organization or society can impose on a member is expulsion." RONR (12th ed.) 61:2

"The usual possible penalties for an officer are censure or removal from office, although in special circumstances others may be appropriate (for example, to repay into the society's treasury funds that the officer has been found guilty of misappropriating, perhaps with an added fine). For all of these, including removal from office, a majority vote is required. Penalties appropriate in disciplinary proceedings against members are discussed in 61:2. For expulsion, a two-thirds vote is required." RONR (12th ed.) 63:33(e)

Thank you.

Is there any specific reference in Chapter XX to a majority vote being required in the above disciplinary instances (forming a investigative committee or imposing penalties short of expulsion), or is a majority vote the default if a greater threshold isn't specified?

 

[Josh Martin]

On 11/1/2022 at 12:35 PM, Louise said:

Is there any specific reference in Chapter XX to a majority vote being required in the above disciplinary instances (forming a investigative committee or imposing penalties short of expulsion), or is a majority vote the default if a greater threshold isn't specified?

The latter.

"The basic principle of decision in a deliberative assembly is that, to become the act or choice of the body, a proposition must be adopted by a majority vote; that is, direct approval—implying assumption of responsibility for the act—must be registered by more than half of the members present and voting on the particular matter, in a regular or properly called meeting of the body (see also 44:1–2)." RONR (12th ed.) 1:6

"As stated in 1:6, the basic requirement for approval of an action or choice by a deliberative assembly, except where a rule provides otherwise, is a majority vote. The word majority means “more than half”; and when the term majority vote is used without qualification—as in the case of the basic requirement—it means more than half of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions, at a regular or properly called meeting." RONR (12th ed.) 44:1

[Louise]

Perfect. Thank you.