discipline of a member

[Guest Lee Hunt]

If in the midst of a discipline proceeding, the member under review refuses to hear the charges, and walks out, how does the organization proceed? Can the board hearing the complaint proceed to discipline without the member present and without the members reply to charges?

[Chris Harrison]

If in the midst of a discipline proceeding, the member under review refuses to hear the charges, and walks out, how does the organization proceed? Can the board hearing the complaint proceed to discipline without the member present and without the members reply to charges?

If the member had been properly noticed of the trial and neglects to show up, refuses to respond to the charges, walks out in the middle of the trial, or so on the assembly can proceed with the trial without him (RONR p. 638).

[Guest Lee Hunt]

If the member had been properly noticed of the trial and neglects to show up, refuses to respond to the charges, walks out in the middle of the trial, or so on the assembly can proceed with the trial without him (RONR p. 638).

[Guest Lee Hunt]

If the original trial was adjourned due to unruly behavior and crowd control, can the trail proceed at the next called meeting, without the member present/no additional notice since he/she had the opportunity of adequate notice and time to respond, and chose to walkout without responding?

[Chris Harrison]

If the original trial was adjourned due to unruly behavior and crowd control, can the trail proceed at the next called meeting, without the member present/no additional notice since he/she had the opportunity of adequate notice and time to respond, and chose to walkout without responding?

If all the T's are crossed and I's are dotted per the bylaws you can proceed with the trial even if the member decides not to cooperate. To do otherwise would be allowing the member to grind the trial to a halt merely by refusing to play ball.

[Guest Nancy N.]

If all the T's are crossed and I's are dotted per the bylaws you can proceed with the trial even if the member decides not to cooperate. To do otherwise would be allowing the member to grind the trial to a halt merely by refusing to play ball.

[Guest Nancy N.]

I meant to reply:

Be very sure you understand what Chris H means about the crossed T's and dotted I's, given his famous parliamentarily laconic style.. I'm particularly unnerved by the reference to the next called meeting, with no additional notice. Just f'rinstance.

[Guest Lee Hunt]

I meant to reply:

Be very sure you understand what Chris H means about the crossed T's and dotted I's, given his famous parliamentarily laconic style.. I'm particularly unnerved by the reference to the next called meeting, with no additional notice. Just f'rinstance.

[Guest Lee Hunt]

Can you say more about what you mean? We are at a standstill because the member refuses to cooperate with the process, but we do want a proper process. I suspect based on the last meeting, we'll just have a repeat of what already happened, but if we must re-notify, we will. I just want to be sure we can justify moving on one way or another, otherwise it just hangs there with no closure--this is exactly what the member wants.

[jstackpo]

If (a big if) you went thru the formal process of "Fixing the time to which to adjourn" - RONR, p. 234 - at the most recent meeting you held, and then adjourned the meeting, no further notice is needed, to anybody. Just show up when the time comes and proceed.

If not, then you will have to look to your bylaws for the rules for calling a (another-?) special meeting to continue the discipline process. That may involve another notice to all.

As others have noted, the "cooperation" of the accused is not a requirement called for in discipline hearings.

[hmtcastle]

As others have noted, the "cooperation" of the accused is not a requirement called for in discipline hearings.

And don't let "unruly behavior and crowd control" force another adjournment. Throw the bums out. There should be order in the court.

[Gary Novosielski]

Can you say more about what you mean? We are at a standstill because the member refuses to cooperate with the process, but we do want a proper process. I suspect based on the last meeting, we'll just have a repeat of what already happened, but if we must re-notify, we will. I just want to be sure we can justify moving on one way or another, otherwise it just hangs there with no closure--this is exactly what the member wants.

Typically a called meeting WILL require notice to all members. You can't leave out the accused member. But there was no need to stop the meeting because the accused walked out. He has the right to be notified and to attend. If he waives that right by not showing up, or by walking out, there is no reason for the proceedings to stop.

And the chair of the meeting has the duty to keep order. He cannot allow disorder to be used as a method to derail the disciplinary proceedings. A recess might be appropriate to allow breathing time, but adjourning is a bad idea, because it validates the tactic of disruption. Whatever happens, he should ensure that the proceedings continue without delay.

P.S. He can also waive his right to be present by being the unruly one. The assembly has the right to bar him from the meeting if he does not obey the rules of decorum. Being accused does not grant him an exemption from obeying the rules, the same as anyone else has to do.

[Guest Lee Hunt]

Typically a called meeting WILL require notice to all members. You can't leave out the accused member. But there was no need to stop the meeting because the accused walked out. He has the right to be notified and to attend. If he waives that right by not showing up, or by walking out, there is no reason for the proceedings to stop.

And the chair of the meeting has the duty to keep order. He cannot allow disorder to be used as a method to derail the disciplinary proceedings. A recess might be appropriate to allow breathing time, but adjourning is a bad idea, because it validates the tactic of disruption. Whatever happens, he should ensure that the proceedings continue without delay.

P.S. He can also waive his right to be present by being the unruly one. The assembly has the right to bar him from the meeting if he does not obey the rules of decorum. Being accused does not grant him an exemption from obeying the rules, the same as anyone else has to do.

[Guest Lee Hunt]

Can't go back and un-ring the bell, a motion was made to adjourn, all parties had had it with the proceeding, chair did her best to control the disruptions but we have no Sargeant at Arms and so could not evict the disruptive parties who continued to come in and out shouting until we locked the door in order to continue. I believe this is exactly what the accused member hoped would happen, hence his inviting 20-70 people to come and disrupt the proceedings. We have 5 complaints of behavior before us regarding this member, and need to find a way to closure. We have a regularly scheduled meeting this week. All the members know of the meeting, it is posted in the newsletter, can we return to this issue which was tabled to a future meeting at this next scheduled meeting without specifically inviting the accused. He is a member of the organization, not a member of the board, so likely would not be there without a specific invitation?

[Josh Martin]

He is a member of the organization, not a member of the board, so likely would not be there without a specific invitation?

If you have customized disciplinary procedures in your Bylaws, you need to look there to determine the rights of the accused and other members with respect to the proceedings. If your Bylaws simply authorize the Board to conduct disciplinary procedures, but you are otherwise bound by the rules of Ch. XX of RONR, the accused has a right to be notified and be present, but this right does not extend to other members of the society. If your Bylaws do not authorize the Board to conduct disciplinary procedures, you need to start over from scratch and follow the procedures in RONR, 10th ed., Ch. XX.

[Guest Lee Hunt]

If you have customized disciplinary procedures in your Bylaws, you need to look there to determine the rights of the accused and other members with respect to the proceedings. If your Bylaws simply authorize the Board to conduct disciplinary procedures, but you are otherwise bound by the rules of Ch. XX of RONR, the accused has a right to be notified and be present, but this right does not extend to other members of the society. If your Bylaws do not authorize the Board to conduct disciplinary procedures, you need to start over from scratch and follow the procedures in RONR, 10th ed., Ch. XX.

[Guest Lee Hunt]

Sadly it is a combo, some things specified in the bylaws as to discipline, others not, but bylaws in general, where silent revert to RONR. Sounds like we have to start the whole thing over, then when the unruly behavior starts, keep going and vote in spite of the disruptions. This is frustrating, exhausting and intimidating to members of the board who are not accustomed to such behavioral outbursts. I had been told that if the member refused to cooperate we could go ahead without him, but my understanding from this discussion is this is not correct, we must endure him and the shenanigans for yet another meeting in order to proceed. Thank you for your help.

[hmtcastle]

but my understanding from this discussion is this is not correct, we must endure him and the shenanigans for yet another meeting in order to proceed.

I don't think the replies you've received support that understanding.

[Josh Martin]

I had been told that if the member refused to cooperate we could go ahead without him, but my understanding from this discussion is this is not correct, we must endure him and the shenanigans for yet another meeting in order to proceed.

Depending on the wording of your Bylaws, it may well be the case that you will need to notify the member of the next trial and permit him to attend, but you are certainly not required to endure him and his shenanigans. As previously noted, the member may be removed from the meeting if he persists in disorderly behavior, and the meeting may be continued without him (whether he is removed because of disorder or he leaves of his own accord).

[Gary Novosielski]

Can't go back and un-ring the bell, a motion was made to adjourn, all parties had had it with the proceeding, chair did her best to control the disruptions but we have no Sargeant at Arms and so could not evict the disruptive parties who continued to come in and out shouting until we locked the door in order to continue. I believe this is exactly what the accused member hoped would happen, hence his inviting 20-70 people to come and disrupt the proceedings. We have 5 complaints of behavior before us regarding this member, and need to find a way to closure. We have a regularly scheduled meeting this week. All the members know of the meeting, it is posted in the newsletter, can we return to this issue which was tabled to a future meeting at this next scheduled meeting without specifically inviting the accused. He is a member of the organization, not a member of the board, so likely would not be there without a specific invitation?

Your explanation is not that clear. This is a board meeting? If so, how did these 20-70 people get invited? One person cannot invite them, only the board can, by majority vote. Even if the accused is a member of the board, he can't invite non-board-members in. Invite this guy (alone), and if he show up fine, if not, fine. If he yells, kick him out, if he leaves, lock the door behind him.

But go through your disciplinary procedure, and be done with it.

And if any of those shouting people are shouting things that could be interpreted as threats, call the police. Non-members have no right to interrupt a private meeting. Treat them like burglars.

[Guest Nancy N.]

In the event that Guest Lee Hunt is still with us; or, either way, just in case this might benefit other readers: when disruption and/or disorder can be reasonably anticipated, Robert's Rules recommends preemptively (proactively? I can't decide which is better here. Help me, somebody) engaging a security service (p. 629, lines 26 - 29). Or I guess maybe those crocodiles we read about in the parliamentary literature.

[Guest Lee Hunt]

Your explanation is not that clear. This is a board meeting? If so, how did these 20-70 people get invited? One person cannot invite them, only the board can, by majority vote. Even if the accused is a member of the board, he can't invite non-board-members in. Invite this guy (alone), and if he show up fine, if not, fine. If he yells, kick him out, if he leaves, lock the door behind him.

But go through your disciplinary procedure, and be done with it.

And if any of those shouting people are shouting things that could be interpreted as threats, call the police. Non-members have no right to interrupt a private meeting. Treat them like burglars.

[Guest Lee Hunt]

Yes, this was a called board meeting. Our bylaws state that if members bring forward complaints about a member that are deemed to show unbecoming or reprehensible behavior on the part of the member, the member may be dismissed. The member is to be given 10 days notice of a meeting to be held in order to face the board and respond to the complaints. The member rec'd the 10 day notice and came to the meeting. He came with 20 people in tow, and with Roberts Rules (our bylaws revert to Roberts in the event of silence or lack of clarity) and he and several others repeatedly interrupted the process by arguing from Roberts Rules. When the "visitors" were asked to leave, they refused. The accused member refused to hear the complaints, argued about how many people he could have speak on his behalf, how long each of his 20+ people could speak, and on what issues they could speak. After an hour of interruptions, threats and finger pointing, someone on the board called for adjournment because no progress was being made, and we could not evict the "visitors", nor could we get the accused member to stay in his seat, or stay in the room to hear the complaints. In retrospect, we should have just locked the door and voted, but we were bewildered by all the things they were reading out of Roberts Rules with which we were not familiar, and so we were unsure of our process. Now we are at a deadlock. We do not know how to properly proceed to a next meeting or to a vote because he has not heard the charges, or responded to them. We do not know if we can create our own process or if we use a Robert's Rules process because our bylaws state only that we give a 10 day notice, call a meeting, give the complaints to the member, and vote on dismissal. They are admittedly unclear. So now what?

[J. J.]

Yes, this was a called board meeting. Our bylaws state that if members bring forward complaints about a member that are deemed to show unbecoming or reprehensible behavior on the part of the member, the member may be dismissed. The member is to be given 10 days notice of a meeting to be held in order to face the board and respond to the complaints. The member rec'd the 10 day notice and came to the meeting. He came with 20 people in tow, and with Roberts Rules (our bylaws revert to Roberts in the event of silence or lack of clarity) and he and several others repeatedly interrupted the process by arguing from Roberts Rules. When the "visitors" were asked to leave, they refused. The accused member refused to hear the complaints, argued about how many people he could have speak on his behalf, how long each of his 20+ people could speak, and on what issues they could speak. After an hour of interruptions, threats and finger pointing, someone on the board called for adjournment because no progress was being made, and we could not evict the "visitors", nor could we get the accused member to stay in his seat, or stay in the room to hear the complaints. In retrospect, we should have just locked the door and voted, but we were bewildered by all the things they were reading out of Roberts Rules with which we were not familiar, and so we were unsure of our process. Now we are at a deadlock. We do not know how to properly proceed to a next meeting or to a vote because he has not heard the charges, or responded to them. We do not know if we can create our own process or if we use a Robert's Rules process because our bylaws state only that we give a 10 day notice, call a meeting, give the complaints to the member, and vote on dismissal. They are admittedly unclear. So now what?

The accused has a right to call witnesses, including nonmembers, and put on a defense, but nonmember witnesses need be admitted only to testify. If nonmembers refuse to leave upon order of the majority, the majority may direct the chair to call the police and to file charges against them.

[hmtcastle]

So now what?

RONR-Land is divided into members and non-members. The former have right; the latter don't. At board meetings, "members" means board members. That fact that someone might be a member of the association is immaterial if he's not also a board member.

When the board next meets, it can invite the accused and exclude his supporters. Or admit one supporter at a time. If the accused doesn't behave he can be ejected.

Surely you've seen TV shows where the judge says something like, "One more outburst like that and I'll clear this courtroom!".