Chair issues call for Meeting; however, the Meeting is really a Hearing for Removal of an Officer

[Guest Mary Lynn]

The Chair of a County Committee has called for a meeting to remove two officers for alleged violations of party rules.  The Party rules require a hearing for removal of elected officers but do not prescribe the process.  The party rules defer to RONR.  My understanding under 63 is that the following steps should be taken to effectuate removal: 1) confidential investigation by a committee; (2) report of the committee and referral of charges if warranted; (3) formal notification of the accused; (4) trial; and (5) the assembly’s review of a trial committee’s findings or assembly of the County Committee to vote on said findings.  None of these steps have occurred but a meeting has been called to have a hearing.  Another issue is that the Chair of this body has a conflict of interest and should not presiding over this matter.   Any suggestions?

[Rob Elsman]

Follow the rules? 🙂

[Gary Novosielski]

What exactly (verbatim) do your rules say about removal of officers?  In what body does this "hearing" take place?

What sort of meeting has been called?  Is it a meeting of a board-like coödinating committee, or of the full general membership?  Presuming this is a special (not regular, scheduled) meeting, what did the written call of the meeting say, with respect to what business would be conducted at that meeting?

Has this hearing been ordered as a result of some vote in an appropriate body, or did the president just decide that "we're havin' us a hearin'"?

And most important: How do the rest of the party members feel about this action?  If there was a vote on whether what the president was doing was proper, would a majority be on your side, or are you the lone protector of the flame of justice?

Edited May 25, 2023 at 12:34 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Guest Mary Lynn]

(g) Removal of Officers, Committee Members, and Delegates: Except as
otherwise specifically provided in these rules, any officer, committee
member or delegate of any organization, committee, delegation, or unit of
the Oklahoma Republican Party, may at any time be removed in the same
manner and by the same power or authority by which one was appointed
or elected.

Any County Chairman or Vice Chairman, or any member of the State
Committee, or any Congressional District Committee, may be removed at
any time for cause by a majority vote of the entire existing membership of
the County Committee of their County.
 

The State Chairman, Vice Chairman, National Committeeman, or National
Committeewoman may be removed at any time for cause by a majority vote
of the entire existing membership of the State Committee.
Causes for removal shall include but not be limited to the following:
(1) Misappropriation of funds under the rules of the Republican Party;
(2) Failure to follow the rules of the Oklahoma Republican Party;
(3) Conviction of a felony; and (4) Publicly supporting or endorsing an
opponent of candidates of the Republican Party.

Any such removals, except as to precinct officers as provided under Rule
5 (f) and any removals authorized under Rule 6(f), may be ordered only
after ten (10) days notice in writing has been given to the person charged,
stating the cause and time and place of hearing thereon, and after the person
has had the opportunity to present evidence, witnesses, and to be heard
personally and by counsel.

 

As there is no other language that prescribes the forum for a hearing the rules state that RONR will govern.

The issue:  The Central Committee was to vote on Election Board Nominee. Election Board Committee is comprised of Chair, VC, and 2 State Committee Members.  Chair and SCM voted for one person and the VC and SCM voted for a different person.  The vote was tied and no compromise could be reached.  The Chair then decided under 44:13 he had the tie breaking vote and he filled out the forms with his choices and sent them in to the Election Board. The VC and State Committee Member notified the proper authorities including the State Board that the vote was tied and that either the State Central Committee or State Election Board would need to appoint the Election Board Nominee.  The State Election Board agreed with VC and SCM.  They sent a letter stating that the Central Committee had failed in their duties and thus they appointed someone.  Then a request was issued for a Meeting to remove the VC and SCM because they had gone behind the chair's back letting the proper authorities know the vote had been deadlocked.   Upon receiving the request for a meeting the Chair then issued a call.  Both the notice and call were delivered publicly to the membership at large.

[Guest Mary Lynn]

The call to action and justification of the same is the removal of the VC and SCM.  The only other business is to replace these positions once they are gone.

This is a specially called meeting by 19 of the 58 Committee Members.  The Chairman issued the Call after the Notice of said meeting was served to the VC and SCM at the State Convention in front of all the delegates.

It is unclear at this time how members will vote.  19 Members seem determined to have these two removed.  The issue is that they have been trying to get them to resign since the County Convention in April.  The Chair has allowed these two elected officials to be verbally attacked, has refused to engage and/or work with them, has refused for them to have access to the general email system.  They did not want these two people to be elected.

Twenty twenty members thus far have signed a letter asking that the Chair cancel the meeting and that they do not find what VC and SCM are being accused of worthy of removal.

We are working on the other Members and will likely being filing relief in District Court as it appears that some Members simply do not want to be involved and will not voice an opinion either way.

[J. J.]

Do the bylaws permit the 19 members to call the meeting?  Removal will require 30 votes in favor. 

[Guest Mary Lynn]

The OKGOP Rules state that one fourth of the entire existing members of the County Committee shall be
authorized to issue a call for such meeting (15 votes).

There are 57 votes to be counted.  It will take 29 votes in favor.  Sorry I misstated above, there are 58 members, but one member has two roles and would only get one vote, so there are 57 votes that can be cast.

[Guest Mary Lynn]

A meeting can be called, but, wouldn't a displinary hearing be different than a specially called meeting.  I think the rules are fairly vague under the OKGOP and would divert to RONR which Rule 63 prescribes a pretty detailed manner by which a hearing should be had. 

[J. J.]

On 5/24/2023 at 9:59 PM, Guest Mary Lynn said:

A meeting can be called, but, wouldn't a displinary hearing be different than a specially called meeting.  I think the rules are fairly vague under the OKGOP and would divert to RONR which Rule 63 prescribes a pretty detailed manner by which a hearing should be had. 

No,  The hearing would take place within the meeting. 

[Guest Mary Lynn]

Despite no investigation having taken place under rule 63.  There has been no resolution to investigate, no investigation, no referral......just a meeting.  It states in 63 that once a referral of a charge is made, the Secretary shall cause notice of hearing to be set. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/24/2023 at 9:59 PM, Guest Mary Lynn said:

A meeting can be called, but, wouldn't a displinary hearing be different than a specially called meeting.  I think the rules are fairly vague under the OKGOP and would divert to RONR which Rule 63 prescribes a pretty detailed manner by which a hearing should be had. 

But Section 63 does not apply in your case.  Your bylaws clearly state that they can be removed at any time by a vote of the full  state committee.  That supersedes any process in RONR.  

It's ironic that these two are proposed to be removed by the chair for whistleblowing about the improper action of the chair, who should be the one being disciplined for voting twice.  No good deed goes unpunished in some quarters.

[J. J.]

On 5/24/2023 at 11:31 PM, Guest Mary Lynn said:

Despite no investigation having taken place under rule 63.  There has been no resolution to investigate, no investigation, no referral......just a meeting.  It states in 63 that once a referral of a charge is made, the Secretary shall cause notice of hearing to be set. 

Well, first, they would have to get into a meeting to appoint an investigative committee.  The assembly could meet, appoint the committee, and set an adjourned meeting for the investigating committee to report.

Second, I see no prohibition on how quickly a committee could report back.  A committee could report back almost instantly.  The committee could be a committee of one or a committee of the whole.

While a suggestion was made that RONR provides for steps that "must be followed," failing to appoint an investigatory committee does not violate any 26:3 requirements, and, by itself, is not a breach of a continuing nature.  Note, however, that doing something like trying put a member on trial without proper notice of the adopted charges would violate the basic right of the individual member (26:3e).  Being informed of the charges and being given time to prepare a defense is a right of the right of the member  (63:5). 

[J. J.]

On 5/24/2023 at 11:40 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

But Section 63 does not apply in your case.  Your bylaws clearly state that they can be removed at any time by a vote of the full  state committee.  That supersedes any process in RONR.  

It's ironic that these two are proposed to be removed by the chair for whistleblowing about the improper action of the chair, who should be the one being disciplined for voting twice.  No good deed goes unpunished in some quarters.

The rule quoted does require a "hearing."

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/25/2023 at 12:03 AM, J. J. said:

The rule quoted does require a "hearing."

Yes, but it's not any part of the process in RONR §63.  It's just a hearing that has the proper notice and the opportunity to provide evidence.  It resembles a Trial in some ways, except there apparently are no charges or specifications--although it is supposed to be "for cause", and it resembles the review, as the final step in the discipline in 63, but the entire process is nowhere near as detailed and has few if any safeguards for the accused.

"Sentence first--verdict afterwards."  --The Red Queen

But it is, as the kids say, what it is.

 

[J. J.]

On 5/25/2023 at 12:31 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Yes, but it's not any part of the process in RONR §63.  It's just a hearing that has the proper notice and the opportunity to provide evidence.  It resembles a Trial in some ways, except there apparently are no charges or specifications--although it is supposed to be "for cause", and it resembles the review, as the final step in the discipline in 63, but the entire process is nowhere near as detailed and has few if any safeguards for the accused.

"Sentence first--verdict afterwards."  --The Red Queen

But it is, as the kids say, what it is.

 

I would say that, absent some other rule, the "hearing" must be conducted as per RONR §63. 

In addition, using RONR solely, I would question if a member could initiate disciplinary actions.  In the absence of a rule*, that is an ability given by RONR to the assembly.  

 

*I am well aware that some organizations have a rule that says "Any member may file charges against any other member." 

[Guest Mary Lynn]

Thank you both so much for your wisdom and thoughts.  I think because the rules are so vague as to how a hearing should be handled under the OKGOP Rule 19g, it would serve all involved to follow Rule 63.  I think the Chairman lacks the ability to conduct a fair an impartial hearing first because he likely has a conflict of interest, but, more importantly because he is new and does not appear to have a grasp of the RONR.  He has to continuously defer to others and often those he defers to are leading him astray (ie the "tie breaker 44:13 application).  This is not the first time he has broken a widely understood rule, this is just the rule that broke the camels back.  He has sincerely struggled since taking office.  I truly wish he would get someone with integrity and experience who can help that understand RONR.  Following the rules are important and help from serious harm resulting to the organization and its members.  Unfortunately, it looks like the only option will be to file Injunctive Relief with the Court.  But I was hoping maybe someone had an idea that I had not contemplated.  The side being accused of rule violations has offered mediation, face to face meetings, the State Election Board wrote a letter, and other retired and current elected officials have reached out trying to diffuse the situation.  But they are determined to remove these two officers who followed the rules prescribed. 

[J. J.]

I would question if there was a conflict of interest, unless you have rules defining it. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/25/2023 at 2:51 PM, Guest Mary Lynn said:

Unfortunately, it looks like the only option will be to file Injunctive Relief with the Court.  But I was hoping maybe someone had an idea that I had not contemplated.

Well yeah:  Get rid of the President.  That's got to be easier than going to court.

[Guest Lisa Gabel]

This is a very interesting thread to read as our state has something similar going on.  We have similar wording in our bylaws as to the removal of a county chair.  However, our bylaws explicitly state the RROO gover the procedures of the body.  In our case does rule 63 apply?  Additionally there was not proper notice given to the individual, just an order to show up at a meeting that was called.  Once the Chair realized his mistake and investigative committee was then selected.  However, there are many conflicts of interest at play.  One individual on the committee recently lost the chairmanship election this past January, several other members have spoken about the individual and the investigation on public radio, and other members actively showed support to the chairs opponent (who lost) during the election.  State Executive Committee members are required to stay neutral during county party elections per our by-laws.  So what we have here is a state chair and Executive committee abusing authority and has created a state central committee with selected people who make up the slight majority thus leaving the abuse of authority, mismanagement of funds, and disregard for the rules unchecked as any person who tries to question is berated by others on the committee until they just give up and quit.  Any suggestions would be helpful.  

[Josh Martin]

On 5/31/2023 at 9:34 PM, Guest Lisa Gabel said:

This is a very interesting thread to read as our state has something similar going on.  We have similar wording in our bylaws as to the removal of a county chair.  However, our bylaws explicitly state the RROO gover the procedures of the body.  In our case does rule 63 apply? 

No - or at least, not in any aspect where Section 63 is in conflict with your bylaws. It may still provide useful guidance in cases where your bylaws have a provision but are silent on the details, such as if the bylaws prescribe a hearing but provide no details on the manner in which the hearing is conducted. Your bylaws take precedence over RONR. If your bylaws have their own rules on removal of officers, those rules are controlling. This is made clear in RONR both in general and in reference to disciplinary proceedings. (It should also be made clear in the provision in your bylaws adopting RONR as your parliamentary authority, but if not, RONR still has you covered.)

"Except for the corporate charter in an incorporated society, the bylaws (as the single, combination-type instrument is called in this book) comprise the highest body of rules in societies as normally established today. Such an instrument supersedes all other rules of the society, except the corporate charter, if there is one." RONR (12th ed.) 2:12, emphasis added

"When a society or an assembly has adopted a particular parliamentary manual—such as this book—as its authority, the rules contained in that manual are binding upon it in all cases where they are not inconsistent with the bylaws (or constitution) of the body, any of its special rules of order, or any provisions of local, state, or national law applying to the particular type of organization." RONR (12th ed.) 2:18, emphasis added

"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:" RONR (12th ed.) 62:16, emphasis added

"Accordingly, if the rules of the organization do not otherwise provide for the method of charge and trial, a member may..." RONR (12th ed.) 63:9, emphasis added

On 5/31/2023 at 9:34 PM, Guest Lisa Gabel said:

Additionally there was not proper notice given to the individual, just an order to show up at a meeting that was called.

What do the procedures in your bylaws require for notice?

Edited June 1, 2023 at 01:36 PM by Josh Martin