Two board members in legal dispute

[Guest New to Robert's Rules]

This is an interesting situation where I have an Officer and a Board member in a possible legal dispute. As the president I have been informed of this situation by said board member and not my officer. Problem I am running into is the Officer is now all of a sudden pushing the Roberts Rules and wanting to start a committee to investigate wrongdoing done by a member. We are a small 501c7 organization. As president do I have any say or any way from this not becoming a personal vendetta against the board member? Per Roberts Rules the officer doesn't have to state the person to be investigated to make a motion to create this committee and I dont think Robert's rules clearly states how many people have to be on a committee.

[Josh Martin]

On 10/25/2023 at 12:18 PM, Guest New to Robert's Rules said:

This is an interesting situation where I have an Officer and a Board member in a possible legal dispute. As the president I have been informed of this situation by said board member and not my officer. Problem I am running into is the Officer is now all of a sudden pushing the Roberts Rules and wanting to start a committee to investigate wrongdoing done by a member. We are a small 501c7 organization. As president do I have any say or any way from this not becoming a personal vendetta against the board member? Per Roberts Rules the officer doesn't have to state the person to be investigated to make a motion to create this committee and I dont think Robert's rules clearly states how many people have to be on a committee.

So I would first note that since disciplinary procedures and also "a possible legal dispute" are involved, it may be advisable to consult an attorney.

But in regard to the parliamentary rules...

• You have no particular say as the President. These matters are ultimately up to the assembly as a whole.
• To the extent the organization chooses to pursue disciplinary procedures, it would be advisable to read Section 63 in its entirety before proceeding.
• It is not correct that "the officer doesn't have to state the person to be investigated to make a motion." The motion to appoint an investigating committee must specify who the committee is investigating.
• It is correct that Robert's Rules does not state the number of persons that shall constitute the investigating committee. That is at the assembly's discretion.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/25/2023 at 1:18 PM, Guest New to Robert's Rules said:

This is an interesting situation where I have an Officer and a Board member in a possible legal dispute. As the president I have been informed of this situation by said board member and not my officer. Problem I am running into is the Officer is now all of a sudden pushing the Roberts Rules and wanting to start a committee to investigate wrongdoing done by a member. We are a small 501c7 organization. As president do I have any say or any way from this not becoming a personal vendetta against the board member? Per Roberts Rules the officer doesn't have to state the person to be investigated to make a motion to create this committee and I dont think Robert's rules clearly states how many people have to be on a committee.

As president you have a say, a duty in fact, to keep decorum in a meeting and not permit a "personal vendetta" to interfere with order.  But you don't have the power to rule out of order a motion that is proper within the rules.   And "pushing" Robert's Rules is more likely to ensure a fair outcome than whatever is in second place, as long as you understand them and apply them even-handedly.

Please cite where you found the highlighted statement above.  All the rules in §63 of RONR 12th ed. refer to "the accused" and the examples of motions to create an investigation committee include a name as well.  Are you sure you have the Right Book?

The committee size is left up to the membership to determine.  Presumably your members know your organization better than outsiders, and can set a size and appoint the members best suited to the task.  

 

 

Edited October 25, 2023 at 05:48 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Guest New to Robert's Rules]

This is how it was presented to me: "Nomination of committee to investigate an allegation of wrongdoing. All details regarding the topic must be excluded from the formal motion. I (said officer) am making a formal motion at the meeting". "I (said officer) will be makin a formal motion to select a committee to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing by a member per Roberts Rules"

[Josh Martin]

On 10/25/2023 at 2:03 PM, Guest New to Robert's Rules said:

This is how it was presented to me: "Nomination of committee to investigate an allegation of wrongdoing. All details regarding the topic must be excluded from the formal motion. I (said officer) am making a formal motion at the meeting". "I (said officer) will be makin a formal motion to select a committee to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing by a member per Roberts Rules"

The member is partly correct. Details regarding the topic are indeed to be excluded from the motion. But the motion needs to include who is being investigated.

"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. This resolution is to be in a form similar to the following:

Resolved, That a committee of… [perhaps “five”] be elected by ballot to investigate allegations of neglect of duty in office by our treasurer, J.M., which, if true, cast doubt on her fitness to continue in office, and that the committee be instructed, if it concludes that the allegations are well-founded, to report resolutions covering its recommendations.

To initiate disciplinary proceedings involving a member, a suitable resolution would be:

Resolved, That a committee of… [perhaps “five”] be appointed by the chair [or “be elected by ballot”] to investigate rumors regarding the conduct of our member Mr. N, which, if true, would tend to injure the good name of this organization, and that the committee be instructed, if it concludes the allegations are well-founded, to report resolutions covering its recommendations.

For the protection of parties who may be innocent, the first resolution should avoid details as much as possible. An individual member may not prefer charges, even if that member has proof of an officer's or member's wrongdoing. If a member introduces a resolution preferring charges unsupported by an investigating committee's recommendation, the chair must rule the resolution out of order, informing the member that it would instead be in order to move the appointment of such a committee (by a resolution, as in the example above). A resolution is improper if it implies the truth of specific rumors or contains insinuations unfavorable to an officer or member, even one who is to be accused. It is out of order, for example, for a resolution to begin, “Whereas, It seems probable that the treasurer has engaged in graft,…” At the first mention of the word “graft” in such a case, the chair must instantly call to order the member attempting to move the resolution." RONR (12th ed.) 63:8-11

Again, I strongly advise reading Section 63 in its entirety if you anticipate a member will be bringing a resolution of this nature.

I should also hasten to add that the bylaws should also be checked to see if they say anything concerning disciplinary procedures, as those rules will take precedence.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/25/2023 at 3:03 PM, Guest New to Robert's Rules said:

This is how it was presented to me: "Nomination of committee to investigate an allegation of wrongdoing. All details regarding the topic must be excluded from the formal motion. I (said officer) am making a formal motion at the meeting". "I (said officer) will be makin a formal motion to select a committee to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing by a member per Roberts Rules"

Presented how?  In a meeting?  In an e-mail?   

Presuming you have not responded yet, I think you need to quickly familiarize yourself with Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed.) §63.  This member apparently believes they have Robert's Rules on their side, but they're saying things that are partially true and partially incorrect.  As president, you need to be as knowledgeable on disciplinary procedures as this member is, but that should not be terribly difficult.

Read section 63 carefully and come back here if you need anything clarified.  I assume you have a copy of the 12th edition, but if not, Amazon does.   Trust what is in the Book, not what this member claims. If anyone starts making claims about what RONR says, ask for a citation.

Edited to add:

  

On 10/25/2023 at 3:13 PM, Josh Martin said:

I should also hasten to add that the bylaws should also be checked to see if they say anything concerning disciplinary procedures, as those rules will take precedence.

As Josh points out, your bylaws supersede any rules in RONR with which they are inconsistent, so check your bylaws first to see if there are any relevant rules there.  Since your member was invoking Robert's Rules, I may have jumped to a conclusion that the rules in RONR apply fully.  They may not.

Edited October 25, 2023 at 07:30 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Atul Kapur]

This is a complicated process. Rather than rely on what this individual (who may be biased) tells you is in RONR, or try to learn it quickly, you may want to hire a professional parliamentarian who has experience in this area and can provide unbiased, knowledgeable advice.

[Rob Elsman]

Just on the basis of the facts presented, I do not know whether an investgative committee is even required. About all I can suggest is a very thorough reading of RONR (12th ed.) Chapter XX. As you will see (or have already), there are multiple ways to proceed, depending on the particular, relevant facts. 

[Guest New to Robert's Rules]

Thank you all for the information you have shared. This is in fact turning into quite a mess and I will be doing a lot of reading!

[Guest New to Robert's Rules]

Hello again,

 

I have been reading up on the rules. As president I could call a special meeting of Board members only to discuss the motion mentioned above to keep it out of the general meeting, correct? And once discussed in the special meeting can it be brought up again in a general membership meeting? 

[Josh Martin]

On 10/26/2023 at 11:27 AM, Guest New to Robert's Rules said:

As president I could call a special meeting of Board members only to discuss the motion mentioned above to keep it out of the general meeting, correct?

Assuming your bylaws authorize you to call a special board meeting, yes, you could call a special meeting to discuss this matter. Doing so, however, will not necessarily "keep it out" of the general meeting.

Further, the board does not have authority on its own to pursue disciplinary procedures against members, or against officers elected by the membership, unless so authorized by the bylaws.

On 10/26/2023 at 11:27 AM, Guest New to Robert's Rules said:

And once discussed in the special meeting can it be brought up again in a general membership meeting? 

Yes.