TO: All Voting Members of the KWVA Board of Directors
FROM: C. Clyde Hooks, Dept. of South Carolina Commander
SUBJECT: Unfair Trial of KWVA Members at San Antonio
CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified
Lady and Gentlemen,
At the end of the KWVA Board of Directors Meeting in Gaithersburg, Maryland, I requested permission to make a few comments. I told you that I thought the trial of the members in San Antonio was against the National Bylaws and against Robert’s Rules of Order. I told you that some people were referring to the trial as a Kangaroo Court. Of course President Dechert denied that the trial was against any bylaws or rules and that it certainly was not a Kangaroo Court.
First, which of the National Bylaws were violated?
ARTICLE I, MEMBERSHIP, Section 2, Paragraph B, states: Termination of Membership. Any member of the Korean War Veterans Association, Inc. may be admonished, reprimanded, suspended, or expelled or removed from any office of the Association “For Just Cause” after an appropriate hearing, by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Board of Directors. Charges shall be investigated by an Ethics and Grievance Committee following the guidelines in the Standard Procedure Manual.
“After an appropriate hearing” I contend that the hearing was not appropriate. The accused were not allowed to face their accusers. The accused were not allowed to ask questions of the Ethics and Grievance Committee. The accused were not allowed to ask questions of the KWVA Attorney, who is being paid to represent all of the KWVA.
“Charges shall be investigated by an Ethics and Grievance Committee following the guidelines in the Standard Procedure Manual” The E&G Committee is supposed to investigate the charges, not find the accused guilty of the charges.
In the Standard Procedure Manual, under Special Committees, Ethics and Grievance Committee, Chapter 1, Paragraph d. COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES: The Committee is an investigative body; it is NOT a disciplinary body. The power to discipline members resides with the Board of Directors as required by the Bylaws. The Committee shall conduct its work in a fair, impartial, ethical, timely and confidential manner. The Committee shall make no Bylaws judgments.
Then, under Paragraph e, CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATION: In the case of complaint cases forwarded by the Judge Advocate to the Chairman, E&G Committee, the Committee shall assume unfettered jurisdiction and apply its procedures and processes. The Board of Directors shall strictly adhere to the rule, established previously by the Board, that a refusal by an individual to respond, within 15 days, to a written request by the E & G Committee for information pertaining to an alleged charge, shall result in a presumption of validity in favor of the charge.
A bad faith refusal to cooperate with an E & G Committee request for information serves to thwart the system at the threshold, undermining the credibility of the process. Therefore, any such refusal will not be tolerated, and may, in itself, constitute an independent ground for disciplinary action or expulsion.
The National Bylaws contain powers that are granted to the leadership by the members. The Standard Procedure Manual contains instructions for the leadership. It does not contain powers granted by the membership.
“The Committee shall conduct its work in a fair, impartial, ethical, timely and confidential manner. The Committee shall make no Bylaws judgments."
That’s good. Then, they turn around and say:
“The Board of Directors shall strictly adhere to the rule, established previously by the Board, that a refusal by an individual to respond, within 15 days, to a written request by the E & G Committee for information pertaining to an alleged charge, shall result in a presumption of validity in favor of the charge.”
If the Board of Directors wanted to grant that authority to the E & G Committee, then they should have submitted a proposed change to the Bylaws. They do not have the authority, nor should they, to kick someone out because he or she doesn’t want to answer some questions. More about this later, under Robert’s Rules of Order.
BYLAWS ARTICLE VI, PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY, states: "All meetings shall be conducted under the provisions of these bylaws and Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised" (most current edition). “All meetings” should include executive sessions for trials of members. Are the instructions in that publication being followed? It depends on whether or not they want to agree with what the book says. Does everyone follow the same book? No! Here is what Director Lee Dauster wrote:
“I do not understand the importance that several have placed on this topic.
“I would like for someone to give a couple of examples as to HOW the conduct of our meetings would be modified, or the results of issues questioned, dependent on which edition is utilized. It has been explained that regardless of which issue of "ROBERTS " is referred to, there is virtually no difference in the resulting governing interpretation of the rule for the issue questioned. More than likely nothing more than a reprint of the same material.
“If there are differences or changes that will affect the manner or procedure of our meetings, Then let them be shown. Why should one edition be more acceptable than another? I believe the Roberts RULES simply offer a guideline format for proper, or generally accepted conduct of a given meeting. I believe the KWVA by laws govern our more important decision making process."
I hope I can show how some of the rules could change a trial meeting if those rules had been followed. Here is what our Judge Advocate said:
“The Korean War Veterans Association Inc. adopted the Robert's Rules of Order for Parliamentary Procedure, not covered in the Korean War Veterans Association Inc. Bylaws and Standard Procedure Manual.
“All interpretation by me (National Judge Advocate) will come from the, (The New Robert's Rules of Order Parliamentary Procedure Manual) Revised and Updated Edition. (Edited by John Sherman). Published by Barnes & Noble. All other Robert's Rules of Order Parliamentary Procedure Manual are null.” [Emphasis mine.] His book is not the one listed in our Bylaws. His book is out of print and will not be reprinted.
Our attorney writes:
“Please keep in mind, Robert's Rules is subordinate to the KWVA Bylaws. In most respects, it provides only procedural rules for running a meeting. There have been very few changes in the core Robert's Rules since the original edition. Most modifications are simply interpretive.
“I'm afraid that too much emphasis has been given to Robert's Rules of Order - so much so that it has created the appearance that Robert's provides substantive law for the organization, which is not correct. Robert's actually provides only "Parliamentary Authority" - i.e., procedural rules to govern the orderly conduct of meetings - and these rules are subordinate to the substantive authority of the Bylaws.”
I think we almost agree. Our Bylaws say that someone will receive an appropriate hearing. Robert’s spells out what an appropriate hearing is. But enough about the Bylaws. I think most will agree that an edition was adopted by the membership and most don’t want to go by it. I will describe some of the provisions in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised 10th Edition.
Chapter XX covers Disciplinary Procedures. On page 630, an article begins. Note: I will not include the line numbers since I am including whole pages.
RIGHTS OF THE SOCIETY AND THE ACCUSED. Since a society has the right to prescribe and enforce its standards for membership, it has the right to investigate the character of its members as may be necessary to this enforcement. But neither the society nor any member has the right to make public any information obtained through such investigation; if it becomes common knowledge within the society, it should not be revealed to any non member. Consequently, a trial must always be held in executive session; and the introduction and consideration of all resolutions leading up to the trial also should take place when nonmembers are not present.
This should have been explained to the members. There are members that still want to know why the trial was “secret”. It should not be a “secret” as to why the trial was “secret.” I doubt that there was a resolution leading up to the trial. Are there copies of resolutions leading up to the trial? One man should not decide that a trial will be held.
If (after trial) a member is expelled, the society has the right to disclose the fact that he is no longer a member --- circulating it only to the extent required for the protection of the society or, possibly, of other organizations. Neither the society nor any of its members has the right to make public the charge of which an expelled member has been found guilty, or to reveal any other details connected with the case. To make any of [Page 631 begins] the facts public may constitute libel. A trial by the society cannot legally establish the guilt of the accused, as understood in a court of law; it can only establish his guilt as affecting the society’s judgment of his fitness for membership.
Ordinarily it is impossible for the society to obtain legal proof of facts in disciplinary cases. To get at the truth under the conditions of such a trial, hearsay evidence has to be admissible, and judgment as to the best interests of the society may have to be based on it. Witnesses are not sworn. The persons with first-hand knowledge may be nonmembers, who probably will decline to testify, and may be willing only to reveal the facts privately to a single member on condition that their names in no way be connected with the case. Even members may be reluctant to give formal testimony against the accused. A member can be required to testify at a trial on pain of expulsion, but it is very seldom advisable to force such an issue.
A member has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground. If a member is thus accused, he has the right to due process --- that is, to be informed of the charge and given time to prepare his defense, to appear and defend himself, and to be fairly treated.
I am concerned that those that were accused were not given time to prepare for their defense. I understand that Mrs. Kronenberger received a letter four days before the meeting. Since she wasn’t given sufficient time to prepare for a trial, at least her case should be thrown out.
If a member is guilty of a serious offense and knows that other members are in possession of the facts, he may wish to submit his resignation from membership. When the good of the society appears to demand the separation of an offending member, it is usually best for all concerned to offer the member the opportunity to resign quietly before charges are preferred. The society has no obligation to suggest or accept such a resignation at any stage of the case, however, even if it is submitted on the offender’s own initiative.
STEPS IN A FAIR DISCIPLINARY PROCESS. Most ordinary societies should never have to hold a formal [Page 632 begins] trial, and their bylaws need not be encumbered with clauses on discipline. For the protection of the society and members alike, however, the basic steps which, in any organization, make up the elements of fair disciplinary process should be understood. Any special procedures established should be built essentially around them, and the steps should be followed in the absence of such provisions. As applying to offenses elsewhere than in a meeting, the important steps are as follows:
Confidential Investigation by Committee. A committee whose members are selected for known integrity and good judgment should conduct a confidential investigation (usually including an interview with the accused) to determine whether further action, including the preferring of charges if necessary, is warranted.
Accordingly, if the bylaws do not provide for the method of charge and trial, a member should, at a time when nonmembers are not present, offer a resolution to appoint an investigating committee. This resolution should be in a form similar to the following:
Resolved, That a committee of . . . [perhaps “five”] be appointed by the chair [or “be elected by ballot”] to investigate rumors affecting the character of our member, Mr. N, which, if true, render him unworthy of membership [or “cast doubt on his worthiness for membership”], and that the committee be instructed to report resolutions covering its recommendations.
I would, and I believe most of the members would, like the idea of appointing a committee whenever it’s needed, instead of having a standing committee. With a standing committee, the committee tends to get more and more powerful as time goes on.
For the protection of parties who may be innocent, the first resolution should avoid details as much as possible. It is best that an individual member not prefer charges, even if he has proof of another’s wrongdoing. If a member introduces a resolution preferring charges unsupported by an [Page 633 begins] investigating committee’s recommendation, another member should move to postpone this resolution indefinitely, saying that if the indefinite postponement is approved, he will move the appointment of such a committee (by resolution, as in the example above). A resolution is improper if it implies the truth of specific rumors or contains insinuations unfavorable to a member, even if he is to be accused. It is out of order, for example, for a resolution to begin, “Whereas, It seems probable that members of the Finance Committee have engaged in graft, . . .” At the first mention of the word “graft” in such a case, the chair should instantly call to order the member attempting to move the resolution.
An investigating committee appointed as described above has no power to require the accused or any other member of the society to appear before it, but it should quietly conduct a complete investigation, making an effort to learn all relevant facts. Information obtained in strict confidence may help the committee to form an opinion, but it should not be reported to the society or used in a trial --- except as may be possible without bringing out the confidential particulars. Before any action is taken, fairness generally demands that the committee or some of its members meet with the accused for frank discussion and to hear his side of the story. It may be possible at this stage to point out to the accused that if he does not rectify the situation or resign, he probably will be brought to trial.
Please note that the accused should not be told “If you don’t reply to this you will be assumed guilty.” In the KWVA, when the E & G Committee sends someone a letter, they tell them that they have fifteen days to reply, and if they don’t they will be assumed to be guilty of all charges.
Report of Resolutions Either Exonerating the Accused or Preferring Specific Charges. If after investigation the committee’s opinion is favorable to the accused, it should prepare and report a resolution exonerating him. But if the committee from its investigations finds substance to the rumors and cannot resolve the matter satisfactorily in any other way, it should make a report in writing --- which should be signed by every committee member who [Page 634] begins agrees --- outlining the course of its investigation and preferring charges. The preferral of charges is accomplished by recommending in the report the adoption of resolutions, as in the following example:
Resolved, That when this meeting adjourns, it adjourn to meet a 8 P.M. on Wednesday, November 15, 20__. [For variations depending on conditions, see the first paragraph following these resolutions, below.]
Resolved, That Mr. N be, and hereby is,* [*Regarding the effect of the words “and hereby is,” see pages 636-637.] cited to appear at said adjourned meeting for trial, to show cause why he should not be expelled from the Society on the following charge and specifications:
Charge. Conduct unworthy of a member of this organization.
Specification 1. In this that Mr. N has so conducted himself as to establish among a number of his acquaintances a reputation for willfully originating false reports against innocent persons.
Specification 2. In this that on or about the evening of August 12, 20__, in the Matterhorn Restaurant, Mr. N was seen by patrons to be the apparent provoker of a needless and violent disturbance, causing damage to the furnishings.
Resolved, That Messrs. S and T act as managers for the Society at the trial. [See below.]
With reference to an appropriate date for which to set the trial, thirty days is a reasonable time to allow the accused to prepare his defense. When a trial is to be before the assembly of the society as in the example above, it is generally not good policy to hold it at a regular meeting. If there [Page 635 begins] is to be another regular meeting between the date of adoption of these resolutions and the date desired for the trial, the first resolution should be to establish a special meeting instead of an adjourned meeting (see 9). If believed advisable --- and particularly when the trial is likely to be delicate, involve potential scandal, or be long and troublesome, or when the assembly of the organization is large --- the resolutions reported by the investigating committee, instead of providing for trial before the entire assembly, can be worded so as to establish a committee to hear the trial and report its findings and recommendations to the assembly for action. In such a case, the first two of the resolutions above would be worded as follows:
Resolved, That a trial committee consisting of Mr. H as chairman and Messrs. A, B, C, D, E, and F be appointed to try the case of Mr. N and report its findings and recommendations. [A special committee appointed to hear a trial should be composed of persons different from those on the preliminary investigating committee. This resolution can either be offered with the names of the members of the proposed trial committee specified as in the example, or it can contain a blank so as to leave the manner of their selection to the assembly.]
Resolved, That Mr. N be, and hereby is, cited to appear before the said trial committee at the Society hall at 8 P.M. on Wednesday, November 15, 20__, to show cause why he should not be expelled from the Society on the following charge and specifications: . . . [setting them forth, as above.]
The third resolution would be the same whether the trial is to be before the assembly or before a special committee (see above).
I believe that the membership would prefer having a trial at a different time than our National Reunions. National Reunions should be a time for the members to enjoy themselves, not a time for a trial against someone that doesn’t like the KWVA President.
[Page 636 begins] A charge sets forth an offense --- that is, a particular kind of act or conduct that the governing rules define as entailing liability to prescribed penalties --- of which the accused is alleged to be guilty. A specification states what the accused is alleged to have done which, if true, constitutes an instance of the offense indicated in the charge. An accused must be found guilty of a charge before a penalty can be imposed. Ordinarily each separate charge contained in the resolutions should be accompanied by at least one specification, unless the investigating committee and the accused agree in preferring that this information not be disclosed outside the trial. Each specification should be carefully worded so as to make no broader allegation than is believed sufficient to establish the validity of the charge if the specification is found to be true.
The “managers” at the trial --- referred to in the third resolution of the complete set shown above --- have the task of presenting the evidence against the accused, and must be members of the society. Their duty, however, is not to act as prosecutors --- in the sense of making every effort to secure conviction --- but rather to strive that the trial will get at the truth and that, in the light of all facts brought out, the outcome will be just.
I obtained the impression that our attorney, paid for by the members, acted as the “manager” at the trial. I heard that he also acted as the prosecutor. How can this be? Managers at the trial must be members of the KWVA. I was told that he is not a member of the KWVA. If he is not a member of the KWVA and he did act as a manager at the trial, then the trial should be ruled null and void. It never took place. All of the accused should be exonerated.
Formal Notification of the Accused. If the society adopts resolutions ordering trial before the assembly or a committee, the secretary should immediately send to the accused by registered mail a letter notifying him of the date, hour, and place of the trial, containing at exact copy of the charge(s) and specifications with the date of their adoption, and directing him to appear as cited --- even if the accused was present when the resolutions were adopted. If the resolutions contain all the necessary information as illustrated on the two preceding pages, and if the second resolution includes the words and hereby is before the word cited (see first line), the secretary’s letter of notification can [Page 637 begins] reproduce the resolutions in full and can be worded as follows:
Dear Mr. N:
Your attention is called to the fact that the . . . Society, at its meeting on October 14, 20__, adopted the following resolutions: . . . [Text of resolutions].
Kindly be present at the Society hall at the time indicated above.
Sincerely
John Clark, Secretary
If, However, the words and hereby is were omitted from the second resolution, the secretary’s notice to the accused should be worded as a formal citation, thus:
Dear Mr. N:
You are hereby cited to appear for trial at the . . . Society hall at 8 P.M. on Wednesday, November 15, 20__, to show cause why you should not be expelled from the Society on the following charge and specifications: . . . [Text of charge and specifications.]
By order of the . . . Society, adopted at its meeting on October 14, 20__.
John Clark, Secretary
Whichever form of letter is sent to the accused as described above, the secretary should have at hand at the trial a photo-copy, printout, or other direct reproduction of it with the return receipt attached, as proof that the accused was informed of the charges against him. In any event, from the time the accused has been thus notified, all of his rights as a member of the society (except as relate to the trial) are suspended pending disposition of the case.
Two items here. A sufficient amount of time should be granted to the accused so that they might prepare a defense. I have already mentioned that Mrs. Shelia Kronenberger was notified four days before the convention! Everyone should be given at least thirty days in which to prepare for their trial.
The second item concerns the “rights as a member”. Vice Presidents Dickerson and Papas, and Director Edwards, continued to serve in their respective offices, until the time of their trial, when they were told to go stand in the hall. If their rights as a member were suspended, they should have been suspended. If we are going to play by the rules, then we should play by the rules. Why were they not suspended? Is one man making the rules?
[Page 638 begins] Trial Procedure. The trial is a formal hearing on the validity of the charges, at which the evidence against the accused is presented by the managers for the society, at which the accused has the right to be represented by counsel and to speak and produce witnesses in his own defense, and after which, if the charges are found to be true, a penalty is imposed or recommended, but if the charges are not substantiated, the accused is exonerated and his privileges of membership are automatically restored. The managers, as previously stated, must be members of the Society. Defense counsel can be attorney(s) or not, but must be member(s) of the society unless the trial body (that is, the assembly or the trial committee as the case may be) by vote agrees to permit attorney(s) who are not member(s) to act in this capacity. Nonmembers who consent to testify can be brought in as witnesses at the trial, but such a witness should be allowed in the room only while he is testifying.
As mentioned before, the managers must be members of the Association. If Mr. Jimmy Faircloth was not a member of the Association, then the trial and its results should be thrown our.
“[T]he accused has the right to be represented by counsel and to speak and produce witnesses in his own defense[.]”
I understand that the accused did have the right to speak, but only after they were found guilty. Another thing, Mr. John Kronenberger sent his attorney, who was denied the right to represent him.
“Defense counsel can be attorney(s) or not, but must be member(s) of the society unless the trial body (that is, the assembly or the trial committee as the case may be) by vote agrees to permit attorney(s) who are not member(s) to act in this capacity.” [Emphasis mine.]
Why wasn’t a vote taken to admit the attorney? You certainly made a good impression on him! A vote should have been taken. Again, the results of the trial should be thrown out!
If the accused fails to appear for trial at the appointed time as directed, the trial proceeds without him.
At the trial, in calling the meeting to order, the chair should call attention to the fact that the meeting is in executive session (9), and to the attendant obligation of secrecy. Preliminary steps then include the secretary’s reading from the minutes the resolutions adopted by the society relating to the trial, the chair’s verification --- by inquiring of the secretary --- that the accused was furnished with a copy of the charges, the chair’s announcement of the names of the managers for the society, and the chair’s inquiry of the accused as to whether he has counsel. The trial then proceeds as follows:
It appears that there were no resolutions, just one man’s opinion that a trial should be held. The accused still have not been furnished with a copy of the charges. The trial should be thrown out.
a) The chair directs the secretary to read the charge and specifications.
b) The chair asks the accused how he pleads --- guilty or not guilty --- first to each of the specifications in order, and then to the charge. [Page 639]
c) If a plea of guilty is entered to the charge, there need be no trial, and the meeting can proceed directly to the determination of the penalty after hearing a brief statement of the facts.
d) If the plea to the charge is not guilty, the trial proceeds in the following order, the chair first explaining all the steps, then calling for each of them in sequence: (1) opening statements by both sides --- the managers first; (2) testimony of witnesses produced by the managers for the society; (3) testimony of defense witnesses; (4) rebuttal witnesses on behalf of the society; and then on behalf of the defense, if any; and (5) closing arguments by both sides. Up until the completion of the closing arguments, no one is entitled to the floor except the managers and the defense; and they must address the chair except when questioning witnesses. Cross-examination, re-direct-examination, and re-cross-examination of witnesses is permitted, and witnesses can be recalled for further testimony as the occasion may dictate.
e) When the closing arguments have been completed, the accused must leave the room. If the trial is before the assembly rather than a trial committee, the managers, defense counsel (if members of the society), and member witnesses for both sides remain, take part in discussion and vote as any other members. The chair then states the question on the finding as to the quilt of the accused as follows: “The question before the assembly [or “the committee”] is: Is Mr. N guilty of the charge and specifications preferred against him?” Each of the specifications, and then the charge, is read, opened to debate, and voted on separately --- although the several votes can be delayed to be taken on a single ballot. The specifications or the charge can be amended to conform to facts brought out in the trial --- but not in such a way as to find the accused guilty of a charge not wholly in- [Page 640 begins]cluded within charge(s) for which he has been tried. If the accused is found guilty of one or more of the specifications but not of the charge, a lesser charge should be moved and voted on. If the accused is found guilty, the chair announces that the next item of business is the determination of the penalty. One of the managers for the society usually makes a motion for a penalty the managers feel appropriate (see pp. 624-25); this motion is debatable and amendable. As in the case of an offense committed at a meeting, on the demand of a single member both the question of quilt and the question of the penalty must be voted on by ballot. For expulsion, a two-thirds vote is required.
An awkward situation was presented when the trial was conducted without the accused being in the room. They were found guilty and choices of punishment were made up. Then, the accused were called into the room, told they had been found guilty, asked if they had anything to say, and offered different types of punishment. The trial should be thrown out.
f) After voting is completed, the accused is called back into the hall and advised of the result.
In General, in any trial within a society, an accused should be found guilty of a charge only when his guilt, by its nature, has created a situation such that the best interests of the organization or the profession it represents require a finding of guilty and the imposition of a penalty. A member who votes for a finding of guilty at a trial should be morally convinced of the existence of this kind of guilt on the part of the accused, on the basis of the evidence he has heard.
The above paragraph should be required reading for all of the Board of Directors. Do we want to recruit new members, or do we want to kick out all the old members? The Board of Directors needs to make a decision.
Assembly’s Review of a Trial Committee’s Findings. If the trial has been held before a trial committee instead of the assembly of the society, this committee reports to the assembly in executive session (9) the results of its trial of the case, with resolutions --- in cases where its finding is one of guilty --- covering the penalty it recommends that the society impose. The report should be prepared in writing and should include, to the extent possible without disclosing confidential information which should be kept within the committee, a summary of the basis for committee’s finding. Unless the [Page 641 begins] report exonerates the accused, he should then be permitted --- himself, or through his counsel, or both, as he prefers --- to make his statement of the case, after which the committee should be given the opportunity to present a statement in rebuttal. The accused --- and his counsel if not member(s) --- then leave the room, and the assembly acts upon the resolutions submitted by the committee. The members of the committee should remain and vote on the case the same as other members of the society. Under this procedure, the assembly can decline to impose any penalty, notwithstanding the trial committee’s recommendation; or it can reduce the recommended penalty; but it cannot increase the penalty. The assembly cannot impose a penalty if the trial committee has found the accused not guilty.
According to the above paragraph, the membership of the KWVA should be provided with a report from the Board of Directors. The accused should be permitted to make a statement. He or she should be permitted to have counsel. And the membership of the KWVA that are present should vote on his or her penalty. Is this going to happen? I bet it won’t!
COMMITTEE ON DISCIPLINE. In some professional societies and other organizations where particular aspects of discipline are of special importance, the handling of such matters is simplified by providing in the bylaws for a standing Committee on Discipline (see 50, 56). Its prescribed duties are normally to be alert to disciplinary problems, to investigate them, to introduce all necessary resolutions, and --- in the event of a trial --- to manage the case for the society. This committee may also have the duty of hearing the actual trial, in which case it should be large enough that a subcommittee can perform the confidential investigation as described on pages 632-33. Under the later practice, the full Committee on Discipline adopts the charge and specifications, and the chairman of the committee sends the citation to the accused and presides at the trial, which is conducted just as it would be if held before the assembly. It is generally best not to empower the committee to impose a penalty, however, but to require it to report its recommended disciplinary measures to the society for action, just as in the case of a special committee to hear [Page 642 begins] a trial. In organizations where disciplinary matters may arise with some frequency, the system of having a Committee on Discipline has the advantages of not unduly inconveniencing the society, and of promoting the avoidance of scandal and the settlement of disciplinary problems without an actual trial.
Remedies Against Misconduct or Dereliction of Duty in Office
If the chair at a meeting ignores a motion apparently made and seconded in good faith, and neither states the question on the motion nor rules it our of order, the maker of the motion should raise a Point of Order (23) covering the case, and from the chair’s decision he can Appeal (24). If the chair also ignores the point of order, the member can repeat the motion; and if it is seconded and the chair still ignores it, the maker of the motion can himself put it to a vote standing in his place. If the regular presiding officer of an organized society culpably fails to perform the duties of the chair properly in a meeting, a motion can also be made to censure him, which can be put to a vote by the maker of the motion as just explained, if necessary (see also p. 436). If the offending occupant of the chair is not the regular presiding officer of a society, a motion can be made to “declare the chair vacant and proceed to elect a new chairman.” Such a motion is a question of privilege affecting the assembly (19).
Except as the bylaws may provide otherwise, any regularly elected officer of a permanent society can be deposed from office for cause --- that is, misconduct or neglect of duty in office --- as follows:
• If the bylaws provide that officers shall serve “for __ years or until their successors are elected,” the election [Page 643 begins] of the officer in question can be rescinded and successor can thereafter be elected for the remainder of the term. The vote required for removing the offender from office in such a case is the same as for any other motion to rescind (35).
• If however, the bylaws provide that officers shall serve only a fixed term, such as “for two years” (which is not a recommended wording; see p. 557), or if they provide that officers shall serve “for __ years and until their successors are elected,” an officer can be deposed from office only by following the procedures for dealing with offenses by members outside a meeting; that is an investigating committee must be appointed, it must prefer charges, and a formal trial must be held.
Since our president appoints the E & G Committee (for life?) it would be difficult to dispose of a sitting president.
I think the Board of Directors has received bad advice from our Judge Advocate. Does the Board want to keep a Judge Advocate that insults members that have a question and insists that his book is the only one that is correct? You approved him and you can get rid of him. How about our attorney? Do you really need an attorney? President Coon didn’t have one. Do you need an attorney that gives bad advice during a trial? You approved hiring him and you can get rid of him.
I
n conclusion I would like to say again that I believe that the trial held in San Antonio had too many violations of the National Bylaws and of Robert’s Rules of Order to be considered a legitimate trial. All of the accused should be exonerated.
This letter was published and mailed at my personal expense. No funds of the Department of South Carolina, Inc., were used. This letter can be copied. Distribution is unlimited. If anyone wants a copy by e-mail, let me know. My address is in the letterhead.
Sincerely,
C. Clyde Hooks
Dept. Cmdr.
