Jewel, there is no ethics clause. The bylaws were a very generic copy submitted for tax purposes over six years ago, and the two groups have never operated under them (no one gets paid, etc.). If forced to use them, my read is that all work by both groups must cease immediately, as no one is technically a member of the corporation, and there are only four directors of the corporation. One of them is the aggressor, and one of the others is the person being attacked.
Apparently, when it was realized that they had never been approved, some attempts were made to address the fact. Complicating it is that both groups would need to agree to the new bylaws, or not, and the aggressor won't do anything that would negatively affect the current stance taken against this person.
The complaint against this person is that she's been arguing with her and is negative; the reality is that the argument stems from this person calling into question an meeting scheduled by the aggressor at a private home and whether it's a violation of open meeting law. Many of us think she's right to question, as the aggressor has conducted business in a very questionable manner. We cannot make a motion without being on the "hit list", and can't even put the issue to a vote as the aggressor controls the agenda.
