Club Complaint Process

[Atul Kapur]

I basically agree with Josh's response, especially

On 4/10/2023 at 3:42 PM, Josh Martin said:

I continue to maintain that there is a distinction between the process by which the members are selected and the status of the members themselves. The former occurs solely within a meeting. The latter does not. I don't see how it's possible to escape the fact that the committee and its members continue to exist beyond the board meeting, and the committee will continue to be in compliance (or not) with the rule that the committee shall consist of at least three board members.

 

On 4/10/2023 at 2:05 PM, J. J. said:

The assembly adopts a special rule establishing a committee on discipline, a standing committee.  I think that would be possible.

Only if the bylaws do not list standing committees or, if they do, provide that other standing committees may be created. And this is not, I gather, the OP's situation.

[J. J.]

On 4/10/2023 at 3:42 PM, Josh Martin said:

I have no idea whether such a motion is in order or whether it is necessary to suspend the rules to adopt this motion, since we have been provided no information concerning the society's rule regarding the committee on discipline.

I am speaking in the general sense.  The assembly may establish, either through or bylaw, establish a standing committee, one that could handle a specific class of business, e.g. one that would handle donations. the Donations Committee.

The assembly can suspend the rules and send the matter to another committee.  In this example, they could suspend the rules to send a motion "to make a $100 donation to ____ , "  to a special  committee committee of Mr. A, Ms. B, and Mr. C [non members of the standing committee].  It is the act of sending the matter to a committee and the appointing members of that committee that is happening within the meeting. 

Likewise, this board may suspend the rules and "send the question on discipline of ________ to a committee consisting of [non board members]."

[Dan Honemann]

J.J., referring to 25:12, let's assume that an organization has a policy prohibiting total contributions to any one charitable organization in excess of $500.00 in any one calendar year and a motion is made to make a $600.00 contribution to the XYZ charity. This motion will be made, seconded, stated by the chair, considered by the assembly, and voted on all within the context of a meeting, yet the rule which prohibits it cannot be suspended. This is because, as RONR clearly states, the rule has its application outside of a meeting context. This is what Messrs. Martin, Novosielski and Kapur have been trying to explain to you, apparently without success. 

[J. J.]

On 4/10/2023 at 7:06 PM, Dan Honemann said:

J.J., referring to 25:12, let's assume that an organization has a policy prohibiting total contributions to any one charitable organization in excess of $500.00 in any one calendar year and a motion is made to make a $600.00 contribution to the XYZ charity. This motion will be made, seconded, stated by the chair, considered by the assembly, and voted on all within the context of a meeting, yet the rule which prohibits it cannot be suspended. This is because, as RONR clearly states, the rule has its application outside of a meeting context. This is what Messrs. Martin, Novosielski and Kapur have been trying to explain to you, apparently without success. 

However, I do not agree that 25:12 is applicable in this case.  How a committee is chosen, including how it is populated, occurs solely within the context of the meeting; all of that deals with the transaction of business within the meeting and has application within the meeting. 

I would agree that, if there was a rule that limited what the committee could do, apart from the meeting, that could not be suspended.  If the rule provided that the committee could only impose a penalty of no more 6 months suspension from membership, that rule could not be suspended. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/10/2023 at 1:54 PM, J. J. said:

No, it has not.

A motion to elect by plurality will have the effect outside of the meeting.  The members will be members of the committee even if elected by plurality.

50:8 notes that establishment of a standing, including giving it functions outside of the assembly, without instruction (first bullet point) is a rule in the nature of a rule of order.  That is clearly something that happens apart from a meeting. 

 

A motion affecting voting and elections has application within a meeting.  And rules regarding the election are in the nature of rules of order.  But a motion that would restrict or waive an eligibility requirement to hold office could not be suspended because that rule has application outside the meeting.  So a motion to allow voting for inelligible people would not be in order.

In 50:8, a standing committee can be established by a special rule of order.  Yes, this clearly applies on a continuing basis outside of any meeting.   That is why the special rule of order that established that committee cannot be suspended.  I think you just disproved your own point.

 

[J. J.]

On 4/10/2023 at 10:50 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

A motion affecting voting and elections has application within a meeting.  And rules regarding the election are in the nature of rules of order.  But a motion that would restrict or waive an eligibility requirement to hold office could not be suspended because that rule has application outside the meeting.  So a motion to allow voting for inelligible people would not be in order.

In 50:8, a standing committee can be established by a special rule of order.  Yes, this clearly applies on a continuing basis outside of any meeting.   That is why the special rule of order that established that committee cannot be suspended.  I think you just disproved your own point.

 

This motion does not involve hold office, however.  These are are committee positions.

I would agree with you if this was an eligibility for office qualification.  It is not. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/10/2023 at 11:07 PM, J. J. said:

This motion does not involve hold office, however.  These are are committee positions.

I would agree with you if this was an eligibility for office qualification.  It is not. 

So are you claiming that a special rule of order that established a standing committee may be suspended?  What would become of the committee?  Would it snap back into existence when the meeting was adjourned?

 

[J. J.]

On 4/11/2023 at 12:21 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

So are you claiming that a special rule of order that established a standing committee may be suspended?  What would become of the committee?  Would it snap back into existence when the meeting was adjourned?

 

I am claim that, if there is special rule of order saying all matters of certain class must be referred to a certain committee, the assembly may suspend the rule that the business be referred to that committee and refer it to another committee.

In this case there is a rule that disciplinary action be referred to a committee with a specific makeup.  The rule can be suspended to send the action to another committee without that makeup.

The act of referring something to a committee, and appointing that committee, is very clearly a rule that deals with the transaction of business within the meeting, even if the committee ultimately takes action outside of the meeting (as most committees will).  25:13 does not apply because the act of the assembly referring something to a committee, with all that entails, takes place solely within the meeting.  That is what Mr. Brown and I are saying.

Do not confuse the actions that a committee could take with the creation of that committee. 

 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/11/2023 at 5:06 AM, J. J. said:

I am claim that, if there is special rule of order saying all matters of certain class must be referred to a certain committee, the assembly may suspend the rule that the business be referred to that committee and refer it to another committee.

I appreciate this clarification. I am in agreement that such a special rule of order, as discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 50:8, may be suspended for the purpose of referring the matter to a different committee.

Nonetheless, I do not agree that this is the same as a rule pertaining to the composition of a committee.

On 4/11/2023 at 5:06 AM, J. J. said:

The act of referring something to a committee, and appointing that committee, is very clearly a rule that deals with the transaction of business within the meeting, even if the committee ultimately takes action outside of the meeting (as most committees will).  25:13 does not apply because the act of the assembly referring something to a committee, with all that entails, takes place solely within the meeting.  That is what Mr. Brown and I are saying.

Yes, there is no doubt that the appointment takes place solely within the meeting.

It seems this comes down to a question of whether one views the rule that "If the Board entertains jurisdiction of the charges it shall fix a date for a hearing by the Board or a committee of not less than three members of the Board" as referring solely to the appointment of the committee, or whether this rule in fact refers to the composition of the committee, and requires that the committee in question continue to consist of not less than three board members. In the former case, the rule would have application solely within the meeting where the committee was appointed. In the latter case, it would not.

It appears that we take different views on that question, but I think we at least understand those views now. Ultimately, it will be up to the society itself to interpret its bylaws on this matter and determine whether the rule may be suspended. In the long run, if the organization desires greater flexibility in this regard, it would be best to amend the bylaws.

[J. J.]

On 4/11/2023 at 7:28 AM, Josh Martin said:

I appreciate this clarification. I am in agreement that such a special rule of order, as discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 50:8, may be suspended for the purpose of referring the matter to a different committee.

Nonetheless, I do not agree that this is the same as a rule pertaining to the composition of a committee.

Yes, there is no doubt that the appointment takes place solely within the meeting.

It seems this comes down to a question of whether one views the rule that "If the Board entertains jurisdiction of the charges it shall fix a date for a hearing by the Board or a committee of not less than three members of the Board" as referring solely to the appointment of the committee, or whether this rule in fact refers to the composition of the committee, and requires that the committee in question continue to consist of not less than three board members. In the former case, the rule would have application solely within the meeting where the committee was appointed. In the latter case, it would not.

It appears that we take different views on that question, but I think we at least understand those views now. Ultimately, it will be up to the society itself to interpret its bylaws on this matter and determine whether the rule may be suspended. In the long run, if the organization desires greater flexibility in this regard, it would be best to amend the bylaws.

What the board is doing is, in effect, suspending the rule to send this to another special committee.

If the assembly had a special rule that said, "Either Josh Martin or Jonathan Jacobs shall be a member of all special committees," I have no doubt that the rules could be suspended to permit a special committee to be appointed without either of us being named to it.  In dealing with a committee, composition is part of the appointment process.  The remedy, if one were needed, would be to add the clause, "This rule shall not be suspended," to the above rule.

I will note, since was raised, effectively, by Mr. Novosielski, this would not apply to requirements to holding office or to qualifications for serving on a board, which are not created by the motion to Commit or Refer nor by a special rule.