Disciplinary steps partially defined in bylaws

[U. N. Owen]

In the event the membership of an organization wishes to discipline a member for offences which happened outside of a meeting or were not attended to in a timely manner at a previous meeting, then the rules outlined in Section 63 are followed unless a bylaw supersedes them.

If the bylaws of an organization define the process for removal of a member, but do not define other forms of discipline such as suspension of voting rights or election to positions of trust, would the rules defined in the bylaws for removal apply to lesser disciplines or would the bylaws only apply to the process of removal and require a trial for all other forms of discipline, excluding censure?

I find it difficult to imagine that a lesser process can be used for removal, but a full trial would be needed to suspend voting rights.  Your guidance is appreciated.

[Josh Martin]

On 2/19/2024 at 12:22 PM, U. N. Owen said:

In the event the membership of an organization wishes to discipline a member for offences which happened outside of a meeting or were not attended to in a timely manner at a previous meeting, then the rules outlined in Section 63 are followed unless a bylaw supersedes them.

Yes, this is correct.

On 2/19/2024 at 12:22 PM, U. N. Owen said:

If the bylaws of an organization define the process for removal of a member, but do not define other forms of discipline such as suspension of voting rights or election to positions of trust, would the rules defined in the bylaws for removal apply to lesser disciplines or would the bylaws only apply to the process of removal and require a trial for all other forms of discipline, excluding censure?

I find it difficult to imagine that a lesser process can be used for removal, but a full trial would be needed to suspend voting rights.  Your guidance is appreciated.

This is a more difficult question, and this is ultimately a question concerning the organization's bylaws, not RONR. I think it will depend upon exactly what the organization's bylaws say on this matter.

I am generally inclined to agree that "I find it difficult to imagine that a lesser process can be used for removal, but a full trial would be needed to suspend voting rights," but again, this will depend on the organization's particular rules on this matter.

[U. N. Owen]

I know that we generally try to avoid interpretation of specific bylaws, so I have outlined the bylaw in question below.  If you need the word-for-word, I will provided it.

Quote

 

Provided that notice of consideration of removal of a person from membership is included in the written notice of the meeting, a [voting ratio] vote at any meeting of the general membership may remove any person from membership in [The Organization].

The standard to be used when considering removal shall be whether the member’s conduct is injurious to [The Organization] or any member thereof.

The member whose removal is sought shall be guaranteed due process, including an opportunity to speak in his or her defense at the meeting.

 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/19/2024 at 1:04 PM, U. N. Owen said:

I know that we generally try to avoid interpretation of specific bylaws, so I have outlined the bylaw in question below.  If you need the word-for-word, I will provided it.

Speaking generally, I am inclined to think that in an organization with provisions similar to those described, lesser penalties may be imposed on a member in the same manner as those outlined for removal. Ultimately, however, it will be up to the organization to interpret its own bylaws. In the long run, it would seem advisable to amend the bylaws for clarity in this matter.

I think it may also behoove the organization to take a look at the sentence "The member whose removal is sought shall be guaranteed due process, including an opportunity to speak in his or her defense at the meeting." It may be this is just a paraphrase and there is more to it. But if not, it seems concerning, as the rule seems to suggest the accused has other "due process" rights in this matter that are not enumerated. This would seem likely to lead to arguments about what those rights are.

[U. N. Owen]

I think I understand your reasoning.  

Quote

56:68 "Some Principles of Interpretation"

6) A prohibition or limitation prohibits everything greater than what is prohibited, or that goes beyond the limitation; but it permits what is less than the limitation, and also permits things of the same class that are not mentioned in the prohibition or limitation and that are not evidently improper.

Since the referenced bylaw reduces the procedure of applying the ultimate discipline, therefore the lesser disciplines cannot require a procedure any greater than required for removal.

Additionally, should the referenced bylaw increase the voting requirement for removal, but not mention other disciplinary actions, the voting requirement for the other disciplinary actions remain unchanged while the requirement for removal is increased.

Do I have the right end of the stick?

[Josh Martin]

On 2/19/2024 at 3:58 PM, U. N. Owen said:

I think I understand your reasoning.  

Since the referenced bylaw reduces the procedure of applying the ultimate discipline, therefore the lesser disciplines cannot require a procedure any greater than required for removal.

Additionally, should the referenced bylaw increase the voting requirement for removal, but not mention other disciplinary actions, the voting requirement for the other disciplinary actions remain unchanged while the requirement for removal is increased.

Do I have the right end of the stick?

I'm not as sure about that part. I don't think you can have your cake and eat it too, applying the disciplinary process in your bylaws but applying the voting requirement from RONR. It would seem to me that if the organization follows its disciplinary procedures, the voting requirement for the lesser penalties is the same as for removal. I don't think it it necessarily follows that the same requirement specified in RONR should apply. After all, the organization has a very abbreviated procedure for discipline, so it does not seem unreasonable to have a higher bar for the vote requirement.

Again, in the long run, the organization its bylaws in this matter for clarity. If it is desired to provide a lower voting requirement for lesser penalties, then the bylaws should say so.