Indefinite suspension from membership (Discipline)

[J. J.]

I have noticed that some groups will, presumably after disciplinary action, suspend a member from the rights of membership, but do not specify the time.  If the society has adopted RONR, is this in order?  If so, would it require the same vote for expulsion? 

[The main procedural difference would be that, at some point, the suspended member could have the suspension ended by Amend Something Previously Adopted.]

 

[Rob Elsman]

The governing documents would have to be consulted to know the correct answer.

As far as the rules in RONR (12th ed.) are operative, the suspension of a member's rights as the result of a disciplinary action terminates at the end of the session at which the suspension occurred.  Thus, with respect particularly to expulsion from the society, the member would be free to apply for membership after the end of the session, using the regular procedures for application set out in the governing documents.

[J. J.]

On 12/15/2023 at 10:39 AM, Rob Elsman said:

The governing documents would have to be consulted to know the correct answer.

As far as the rules in RONR (12th ed.) are operative, the suspension of a member's rights as the result of a disciplinary action terminates at the end of the session at which the suspension occurred.  Thus, with respect particularly to expulsion from the society, the member would be free to apply for membership after the end of the session, using the regular procedures for application set out in the governing documents.

Where would you get that this was session based?  It is clear that a society may suspend membership rights beyond the end of a session (even in cases where the offense occurred in a meeting).   It certainly not limited to a session (61.2)

[Rob Elsman]

There is nothing in RONR (12th ed.) that suggests that one session may interfere with the freedom of a later session.  The governing documents will be the source of any such authority.

[J. J.]

On 12/15/2023 at 11:27 AM, Rob Elsman said:

There is nothing in RONR (12th ed.) that suggests that one session may interfere with the freedom of a later session.  The governing documents will be the source of any such authority.

Of course there is.  They can expel someone.  They can adopt a motion that is binding on the assembly, such as setting the meeting location. 

[Rob Elsman]

If the rules in RONR (12th ed.) are controlling, the assembly is free to admit the previously expelled member at the next session using the procedures set out in the governing documents, provided the applicant is qualified for membership according to the governing documents.  See RONR (12th ed.) 8:12.

Of course, the governing documents may provide for something else, and any such rule would supersede a conflicting rule in RONR (12th ed.).

[Josh Martin]

On 12/15/2023 at 9:09 AM, J. J. said:

I have noticed that some groups will, presumably after disciplinary action, suspend a member from the rights of membership, but do not specify the time.  If the society has adopted RONR, is this in order?

I see no reason why it would be out of order.

For the sake of clarity, however, I am inclined to think that the motion should specifically state that the member's rights are suspended "until reinstated by the membership" or some such, so that it is clear that this was intentional and not simply an oversight.

On 12/15/2023 at 9:09 AM, J. J. said:

If so, would it require the same vote for expulsion? 

Yes, I am inclined to think that a motion that a member's rights are suspended for an indefinite period of time is similar to expulsion and requires the same vote as expulsion. This would otherwise permit an end-run around the rule requiring a 2/3 vote for expulsion. I think a similar argument could be made for a suspension which is for an excessively long period of time (although what constitutes such a period of time will vary from society to society).

On 12/15/2023 at 9:09 AM, J. J. said:

[The main procedural difference would be that, at some point, the suspended member could have the suspension ended by Amend Something Previously Adopted.]

Yes, I think this is correct. To end an indefinite suspension, the member would need to get the assembly to vote to end the suspension, whereas with an expulsion, the person would need to be readmitted as a member.

On 12/15/2023 at 9:39 AM, Rob Elsman said:

The governing documents would have to be consulted to know the correct answer.

As far as the rules in RONR (12th ed.) are operative, the suspension of a member's rights as the result of a disciplinary action terminates at the end of the session at which the suspension occurred.  Thus, with respect particularly to expulsion from the society, the member would be free to apply for membership after the end of the session, using the regular procedures for application set out in the governing documents.

I am not aware of anything in RONR which suggests that an assembly may not suspend a member's rights beyond the end of the current session, except in the case of a subordinate board (or a committee, in the limited circumstances where a committee may suspend a member's rights at all).

I do not see how this interferes with the rules concerning the freedom of a future session any more than adopting a main motion does. The assembly is free to end the suspension at a future session if it wishes.

"As a general rule, one session cannot place a question beyond the reach of a majority at a later session except through the process of adopting a special rule of order or an amendment to the bylaws (either of which requires more than a majority vote; see immediately below). It is improper, for example, to postpone anything beyond the next regular session—which would be an attempt to prevent that session from considering the question. The principle stated applies in qualified form to cases in which a majority rescinds or amends something adopted at an earlier session, or discharges a committee from further consideration of a question referred to it at an earlier session—which a majority can do provided that previous notice was given. (See 35:2(7) and 36:4(7) for the vote required for these actions without previous notice.)" RONR (12th ed.) 8:12

Edited December 15, 2023 at 04:47 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

I would like to point out especially what is said in RONR (12th ed.) 35:6, item (c), about reversing an expulsion of a member in a previous session.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/15/2023 at 10:51 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I would like to point out especially what is said in RONR (12th ed.) 35:6, item (c), about reversing an expulsion of a member in a previous session.

What about it?

"Actions That Cannot Be Rescinded or Amended. The motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted are not in order under the following circumstances:

c) When a resignation has been acted upon, or a person has been elected to or expelled from membership or office, and the person was present or has been officially notified of the action. (The only way to reverse an expulsion is to follow whatever procedure is prescribed by the bylaws for admission or reinstatement. For the case of an election, see 62:16 regarding removal of a person from office.)" RONR (12th ed.) 35:6(c)

The rule in question provides that if a member is expelled, the expulsion cannot be rescinded, and it can be "reversed" only by following the procedure prescribed by the bylaws for reinstatement. This all seems entirely consistent with what J.J. and I have said. (I'd also note, that strictly speaking, this rule doesn't say anything about needing to wait for a future session, but generally I imagine it will be unlikely, for several reasons, for a member to be readmitted at the same session where he was expelled.)

RONR does not say that a suspension cannot be amended, nor does it provide that a suspension cannot last beyond the present session.

[Rob Elsman]

On 12/15/2023 at 10:44 AM, Josh Martin said:

The assembly is free to end the suspension at a future session if it wishes.

This is tantamount to a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, which the rule in RONR (12th ed.) 35:6, item (c), says is not in order.

[J. J.]

On 12/15/2023 at 12:07 PM, Rob Elsman said:

This is tantamount to a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, which the rule in RONR (12th ed.) 35:6, item (c), says is not in order.

That is incorrect.  35:6 c said that an expulsion cannot be subjected to R/ASPA.  This is not an expulsion. 

[Rob Elsman]

On 12/15/2023 at 9:09 AM, J. J. said:

If so, would it require the same vote for expulsion? 

This is exactly why hypothetical topics are so impossible.  Since this whole topic seems to be wholly made up, why don't you ask your imagination for the answer?

[J. J.]

On 12/15/2023 at 11:44 AM, Josh Martin said:

Yes, I am inclined to think that a motion that a member's rights are suspended for an indefinite period of time is similar to expulsion and requires the same vote as expulsion. This would otherwise permit an end-run around the rule requiring a 2/3 vote for expulsion. I think a similar argument could be made for a suspension which is for an excessively long period of time (although what constitutes such a period of time will vary from society to society).

 

You did make such an argument and I do agree, then and now.

My only "problem" is not with the argument, but the imprecise nature of where to draw the line in the case of a long suspension; is the a majority or a two thirds vote.  Your argument that it may be based on the type of organization  is compelling and logical; while I agree with it, it is still imprecise. 

Here, with an indefinite suspension, which could be, effectively, permanent, the argument for a 2/3 vote is compelling. 

 

[J. J.]

On 12/15/2023 at 12:18 PM, Rob Elsman said:

This is exactly why hypothetical topics are so impossible.  Since this whole topic seems to be wholly made up, why don't you ask your imagination for the answer?

It is not hypothetical.  I've seen examples.  I have also seen a case where the suspension was 100 years. 

[Rob Elsman]

I have not experienced even one of your examples, and not one of them has been described to me.  This whole topic is premised on a bunch of generalizations that are known to your mind alone.  Since this is so, I submit that your mind, alone, is where the answer must be found.

[J. J.]

On 12/15/2023 at 12:43 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I have not experienced even one of your examples, and not one of them has been described to me.  This whole topic is premised on a bunch of generalizations that are known to your mind alone.  Since this is so, I submit that your mind, alone, is where the answer must be found.

Try googling the Phi Beta Sigma disciplinary action list; I won't link to them.  There are examples of unspecified suspensions and very long term suspensions.

Just because it is not in your experience does not mean it does not happen.

I have yet to see Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes, but I have no doubt that it exists. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 12/15/2023 at 11:44 AM, Josh Martin said:

 

For the sake of clarity, however, I am inclined to think that the motion should specifically state that the member's rights are suspended "until reinstated by the membership" or some such, so that it is clear that this was intentional and not simply an oversight. 

So then a motion to reinstate would not be amending something previously adopted.

 

[J. J.]

On 12/15/2023 at 2:05 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

So then a motion to reinstate would not be amending something previously adopted.

 

I believe it would be, though the chair may note that the suspension may be subject to ASPA at a future point. 

[J. J.]

On 12/15/2023 at 2:05 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

So then a motion to reinstate would not be amending something previously adopted.

 

By the same token, I would not agree that the penalty "be suspended for five years," could be changed by ASPA to "be suspended for ten years."

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/15/2023 at 2:05 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

So then a motion to reinstate would not be amending something previously adopted.

 

I suppose it depends on whether you consider a motion to reinstate the member as tantamount to rescinding the suspension.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 12/16/2023 at 5:43 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I suppose it depends on whether you consider a motion to reinstate the member as tantamount to rescinding the suspension.

The premise was that the motion should specifically state that the member's rights are suspended "until reinstated by the membership".

Under such a condition, I don't see how a motion to reinstate the membership can be viewed as rescinding the motion to suspend membership until it is reinstated. The previous decision is not being changed at all. 

[J. J.]

On 12/16/2023 at 7:59 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

The premise was that the motion should specifically state that the member's rights are suspended "until reinstated by the membership".

Under such a condition, I don't see how a motion to reinstate the membership can be viewed as rescinding the motion to suspend membership until it is reinstated. The previous decision is not being changed at all. 

The example of the penalty did not include "until reinstatement," but it could be stated in debate that the penalty could be reduced by the motion Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted.

Though not germane to the comment, I would note that this could be one of those situation where the vote to do something (inflict a penalty) may be less than a vote to undo it.  The assembly may require a 2/3 vote to inflict a long or indefinite penalty (with notice to the accused), but would only a majority with notice to rescind. 

[Rob Elsman]

I have lost the trail. Could someone "state the question", so that we can all know what is "immediately pending"?

[J. J.]

On 12/17/2023 at 9:58 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I have lost the trail. Could someone "state the question", so that we can all know what is "immediately pending"?

"That ______ membership be suspended," or "That ______ membership be suspended indefinitely."

[Rob Elsman]

The motion to expel a member is fully executed as soon as it is adopted, so there is nothing left to lift or reverse later. That's why an affirmative vote cannot be reconsidered or brought back before the assembly a second time. He's gone—period. If he desires to be readmitted, he will have to apply for admission in the usual way and meet all the qualifications for admission to membership.  He may submit an application if and when he meets the qualifications.