"Charges" and a question of privilege

[J. J.]

19:7 refers to the possibility of a member raising a question of privilege, a question of personal privilege, relating to "charges circulated against a member's character."  Could these include "charges" in the disciplinary sense?  Consider these two situations.

1.  A committee has been appointed to investigate Member X.  Can Member X address potential charges via a question of privilege?

2.  Charges have been adopted, but there is no disciplinary suspension before the trial.  Can Member X address the charges via a question of privilege?

If the answer is yes in either case, must this occur in executive session. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/30/2023 at 8:30 AM, J. J. said:

19:7 refers to the possibility of a member raising a question of privilege, a question of personal privilege, relating to "charges circulated against a member's character."  Could these include "charges" in the disciplinary sense?  Consider these two situations.

1.  A committee has been appointed to investigate Member X.  Can Member X address potential charges via a question of privilege?

2.  Charges have been adopted, but there is no disciplinary suspension before the trial.  Can Member X address the charges via a question of privilege?

If the answer is yes in either case, must this occur in executive session. 

I suppose the answer depends on the exact substance of the request or motion made by Member X.

 

 

[J. J.]

On 11/30/2023 at 12:05 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I suppose the answer depends on the exact substance of the request or motion made by Member X.

 

 

In the first case, he is addressing what he thinks are the reasons for the investigating committee.  At that point, there are no "charges" in the formal sense. 

In the second case, he is addressing the actual charges and, possibly, the specifications. 

In both cases, are they proper questions of personal privilege and would they need to be in executive session?

In both cases, he denies the actions.  

Edited November 30, 2023 at 05:17 PM by J. J.

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/30/2023 at 12:15 PM, J. J. said:

In the first case, he is addressing what he thinks are the reasons for the investigating committee.  At that point, there are no "charges" in the formal sense. 

In the second case, he is addressing the actual charges and, possibly, the specifications. 

In both cases, are they proper questions of personal privilege and would they need to be in executive session?

In both cases, he denies the actions.  

I don't think that either is in order.  In both cases they intend to raise questions which are within the control of the assembly.

[J. J.]

On 11/30/2023 at 1:05 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I don't think that either is in order.  In both cases they intend to raise questions which are within the control of the assembly.

I did notice that the word "charges" is used, which has a specific meaning.  It does go back to the 4th edition, but this was the first time I noticed it.  In writing about it, I've use the term "rumors," which seems to be the intent in PL. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/30/2023 at 1:14 PM, J. J. said:

I did notice that the word "charges" is used, which has a specific meaning.  It does go back to the 4th edition, but this was the first time I noticed it.  In writing about it, I've use the term "rumors," which seems to be the intent in PL. 

I'm not sure I know what this is getting at.

 

[J. J.]

On 11/30/2023 at 1:18 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I'm not sure I know what this is getting at.

 

When I describe raising a question of personal privilege, I have generally referred to cases where the member is addressing rumors of some type of conduct, not an investigation by a committee of alleged misconduct or something that has gone to a trial committee.  Using "charges" could be interpreted to mean charges in a disciplary action. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/30/2023 at 5:38 PM, J. J. said:

When I describe raising a question of personal privilege, I have generally referred to cases where the member is addressing rumors of some type of conduct, not an investigation by a committee of alleged misconduct or something that has gone to a trial committee.  Using "charges" could be interpreted to mean charges in a disciplary action. 

Okay, but I still don't understand what bearing this has on arriving at the correct answers to the questions which you raised.

[J. J.]

On 11/30/2023 at 6:44 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Okay, but I still don't understand what bearing this has on arriving at the correct answers to the questions which you raised.

I was wondering why the word "charges" was being used, since RONR refers to "charges" in terms of disciplinary action. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/30/2023 at 7:58 PM, J. J. said:

I was wondering why the word "charges" was being used, since RONR refers to "charges" in terms of disciplinary action. 

Ah! Now I get it, and I think you make a good point.  It would seem to be advisable to use some word other than "charges" in 19:7.

[Rob Elsman]

I keep noticing the use of the word, "address".  What exactly does the member expect to do when he "addresses"?

[J. J.]

On 12/1/2023 at 6:12 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Ah! Now I get it, and I think you make a good point.  It would seem to be advisable to use some word other than "charges" in 19:7.

Well, the language goes back to the 4th edition.  Looking at PL, it seems likely that it was referring to rumors about the member and not to disciplinary charges, but you really have to dig to reach that. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/1/2023 at 6:12 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Ah! Now I get it, and I think you make a good point.  It would seem to be advisable to use some word other than "charges" in 19:7.

Perhaps "allegations".