Who Approves Member Resignations?

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 6/8/2023 at 11:46 AM, Guest GuestAlex said:

There are approved sets of rules governing use of the organization's facilities.  The investigation involves misuse of those facilities for reasons that can certainly be construed as detrimental.  If, however, 2/3rds of the entire Board does not agree with that conclusion, then the fact remains that there will still be investigated, documented rules violations that, on their own, might be worthy of censure, suspension, or some lesser discipline.

Lesser discipline, perhaps. You're still not talking about lesser charges. You're talking about imposing a lesser penalty for the same charge. 

[Guest GuestAlex]

On 6/8/2023 at 11:59 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Lesser discipline, perhaps. You're still not talking about lesser charges. You're talking about imposing a lesser penalty for the same charge. 

Okay, I can see now where we are talking past each other.  In other contexts, multiple charges can be preferred at the same time, and this is the model I am assuming.  Something like:

RESOLVED, that Mr. N is cited to appear [...] on the following charges and specifications:

CHARGE 1.  Conduct detrimental to the objectives of the Association.

SPECIFICATION 1.1  That Mr. N engaged in activity X on date Y1 using facility Z.

SPECIFICATION 1.2 That Mr. N futher engaged in activity X on date Y2 using facility Z.

CHARGE 2.  Violation of Facility Rules.

SPECIFICATION 2.1  That Mr. N, in performance of activity X on date Y1, failed to lock the gate of Z (rule A.B.C).

SPECIFICATION 2.2  That Mr. N, in performance of activity X on date Y2, spat on the sidewalk (rule A.D.E).

Is your argument that only one single charge can be preferred from an investigation?  If so, then I can understand your conclusion that there is no such thing as lesser charges.  The Board (in our case) needs to consider whether the totality of the activity constitutes reason for dismissal.  On the other hand, I can not believe that, even given the way our Bylaws are written, that an offense becomes all or nothing—if not dismissed once that process is started, the offender gets off scot free.  So, the investigation will still potentially contain evidence of rules violations (for example) that are, in and of themselves, subject to punishment.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 6/8/2023 at 2:02 PM, Guest GuestAlex said:

CHARGE 2.  Violation of Facility Rules.

SPECIFICATION 2.1  That Mr. N, in performance of activity X on date Y1, failed to lock the gate of Z (rule A.B.C).

SPECIFICATION 2.2  That Mr. N, in performance of activity X on date Y2, spat on the sidewalk (rule A.D.E).

Earlier you said that the statement in your bylaws regarding the board dismissing a member "is the one and only statement in the entirety of the Bylaws addressing any matter of discipline whatsoever."

But now you seem to be saying that it would be appropriate to bring a charge before the board for "violation of facility rules". This implies that the board has some jurisdiction regarding enforcement of facility rules.

Which one of these is correct? 

[Guest GuestAlex]

On 6/8/2023 at 2:22 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Earlier you said that the statement in your bylaws regarding the board dismissing a member "is the one and only statement in the entirety of the Bylaws addressing any matter of discipline whatsoever."

But now you seem to be saying that it would be appropriate to bring a charge before the board for "violation of facility rules". This implies that the board has some jurisdiction regarding enforcement of facility rules.

Which one of these is correct? 

As I have stated earlier, the Board opened an investigation into a member concerning an allegation that, if upheld, would be grounds for dismissal.  If, in the course of that investigation, other offenses related to the activity being investigated are discovered, are they to be ignored?  Or are you suggesting that if the investigation does not prefer a dismissable charge then a Board member should, as a regular member of the assembly, bring up the allegations again, for a second investigation by the membership, to perhaps result in the preferring of lesser charges?

If the investigation report prefers multiple charges (as I suggested above), any motion by the Board to cite the member for a non-dismissable charge would be out of order.  That prevents the Board from issuing a punishment beyond its authority.  That doesn't negate the fact that other non-dismissable offenses may have taken place as part of the activity being investigated.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 6/8/2023 at 2:53 PM, Guest GuestAlex said:

If, in the course of that investigation, other offenses related to the activity being investigated are discovered, are they to be ignored? 

If the investigation finds that a member has violated facility rules, then whatever procedure exists for enforcing facility rules should be followed. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/8/2023 at 2:22 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Earlier you said that the statement in your bylaws regarding the board dismissing a member "is the one and only statement in the entirety of the Bylaws addressing any matter of discipline whatsoever."

But now you seem to be saying that it would be appropriate to bring a charge before the board for "violation of facility rules". This implies that the board has some jurisdiction regarding enforcement of facility rules.

Which one of these is correct? 

I had the thought upon seeing the "one and only" statement on discipline that a rather thin rule was being used to create some sweeping powers for the board.