Letter of charges during disipline

[Josh Martin]

On 3/20/2024 at 1:54 PM, rockbust said:

I have highlighted a few phrases from Robert's rules that is leading me to believe all information pertinent to the case is confidential and secret even outside of the actual executive session meeting or meetings.

Does your organization even follow Robert's Rules, Section 63 in this matter? Or does your organization have its own rules governing disciplinary procedures? I understood from the original post that it was the latter.

To the extent that your organization does follow Robert's Rules, Section 63 in this matter, or at least finds Section 63 to be persuasive on matters not covered by your bylaws, I recalled that I believe there was another thread that was germane to this question, and I think I have found it: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/39770-paperwork-outside-of-es/

My final conclusion on this subject was as follows:

"I have thought on this further and it seems to me that the accused does, in fact, have the right to share the charges, and indeed to share other details germane to the trial (such as when and where it will be held), at least to the extent necessary for the accused to prepare their defense. This would include, at a minimum, sharing this information with persons the accused intends to call as witnesses or persons the accused intends to hire as counsel. To suggest otherwise would render the accused's right to prepare a defense meaningless. I am still not entirely persuaded there is an unlimited right for the accused to share the charges with anyone whatsoever. Since the accused was, of course, a party to the original situation, the accused could also share facts known to them of the situation which led to the bringing of charges.

It must be reiterated, however, that this does not mean the accused can share whatever they like concerning the trial and meetings leading up to it. The rules of executive session are binding on all who are present and the accused is not exempt from such rules. The rules pertaining to the secrecy of disciplinary procedures are intended to protect both the accused and the society."

So based upon all this, and based upon the fact that the board met in executive session concerning this matter, there may be a valid complaint of a breach of executive session confidentiality for the member to share the charges broadly, as is described here. I think it's a bit of a gray area. On the one hand, the member appears to have shared the charges for the purposes of preparing their defense. And as far as we know at this time, the letter with the charges is all that was shared, and it was shared only with members of the organization. But it might be argued they were shared more broadly than necessary. But I do think the member has some rights to share the charges, as it is necessary to do so for the member to prepare their defense.

But of course, perhaps the member will succeed in their efforts to gain support, and now the organization will find it is the board that should be disciplined. If so, it might not be wise for the board to push their luck and attempt further discipline against the member for sharing the letter. I'm inclined to think this is more of a political matter than a parliamentary one at this point.

EDIT: Slight edit, as I agree with J.J. that the member is not technically breaching executive session per se, but may be breaching confidentiality more generally.

On 3/20/2024 at 2:14 PM, J. J. said:

The answer is still the same.  The assembly must be in session to have an executive session.  The committee can meet in executive session as well. 

Go back and re-read my answers. 

But J.J., are we not already told that the board did meet in executive session concerning this matter?

While I suppose it is, of course, correct that the letter itself was sent outside of executive session, I don't think this lifts the protections of executive session.

"The general rule is that anything that occurs in executive session may not be divulged to nonmembers (except any entitled to attend). However, action taken, as distinct from that which was said in debate, may be divulged to the extent—and only to the extent—necessary to carry it out. For example, if during executive session a member is expelled or an officer is removed from office, that fact may be disclosed to the extent described in 63:3. If the assembly wishes to further lift the secrecy of action taken in an executive session, it may adopt a motion to do so, which is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (35). In making or debating such a motion, the members must be careful, if the assembly is not in executive session, to preserve the existing secrecy." RONR (12th ed.) 9:26

It was necessary to send the letter to the accused "in order to carry it out." And as I have noted above, the accused also has the right, in my view, to share the contents of the letter to the extent necessary to prepare their defense. I'm not sure this gives the accused an unlimited right to share the contents of the letter with anyone whatsoever.

On 3/18/2024 at 6:56 PM, Guest rockbust@gmail.com said:

Our bylaws require the board to send a copy of the letter of charges filed by a member against a fellow member when the board votes in exectutive session to have a hearing. In a recent situation a copy of the complaint was sent to a member notifing them charges were filed against them. It seems that person has now sent this letter to many other club members in an effort to rally some sort of support. Does sharing this complaint breach confidentiality? 

Edited March 23, 2024 at 01:04 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 3/22/2024 at 12:24 PM, Josh Martin said:

But J.J., are we not already told that the board did meet in executive session concerning this matter?

While I suppose it is, of course, correct that the letter itself was sent outside of executive session, I don't think this lifts the protections of executive session.

"The general rule is that anything that occurs in executive session may not be divulged to nonmembers (except any entitled to attend). However, action taken, as distinct from that which was said in debate, may be divulged to the extent—and only to the extent—necessary to carry it out. For example, if during executive session a member is expelled or an officer is removed from office, that fact may be disclosed to the extent described in 63:3. If the assembly wishes to further lift the secrecy of action taken in an executive session, it may adopt a motion to do so, which is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (35). In making or debating such a motion, the members must be careful, if the assembly is not in executive session, to preserve the existing secrecy." RONR (12th ed.) 9:26

It was necessary to send the letter to the accused "in order to carry it out." And as I have noted above, the accused also has the right, in my view, to share the contents of the letter to the extent necessary to prepare their defense. I'm not sure this gives the accused an unlimited right to share the contents of the letter with anyone whatsoever.

The subject of the letter, the accused, was not in the executive session.  I question how anyone can claim that the accused could violate an executive session of which he did not attend, and, apparently, had no right to attend. 

That said, it would be possible to bring an additional charge against the accused, though not for violating executive session in this regard. 

[Josh Martin]

On 3/22/2024 at 5:30 PM, J. J. said:

The subject of the letter, the accused, was not in the executive session.  I question how anyone can claim that the accused could violate an executive session of which he did not attend, and, apparently, had no right to attend. 

That said, it would be possible to bring an additional charge against the accused, though not for violating executive session in this regard. 

Okay, I think I understand your position now, and I have no disagreement with this.

[rockbust]

On 3/22/2024 at 6:30 PM, J. J. said:

The subject of the letter, the accused, was not in the executive session.  I question how anyone can claim that the accused could violate an executive session of which he did not attend, and, apparently, had no right to attend. 

That said, it would be possible to bring an additional charge against the accused, though not for violating executive session in this regard. 

I understand this. So to that end anything that comes out of exectutive session by way of resolution, action that is sent to any one person can be shared by that party to anyone since they were not a participant in that session?  

[J. J.]

On 3/23/2024 at 11:11 AM, rockbust said:

I understand this. So to that end anything that comes out of exectutive session by way of resolution, action that is sent to any one person can be shared by that party to anyone since they were not a participant in that session?  

I said sharing it does not violate executive session.

A claim could be made that distributing this material disturbs the well-being of the society and charge the member with that (63:24).