I got out my trusty Roberts Rules of Order (two different summary books written by D. Patnode and D. Zimmerman available at any bookstore) for advice. In most cases, if your bylaws are silent on a subject, you refer to RRO. That's why standard bylaws language includes that clause about running your organization according to RRO - it's the cover your rear clause. Anyway, here's what Captain Roberts says you can do:
If there is an offense by a member, you can set up an investigative committee by adoption of a motion to do such. The committee then completes its research in private, including a conference with the person in question. RRO doesn't suggest who should be on this committee - that's left up to you. Based on its research, the committee either closes the case or lists charges against the accused, which sets up the next phase. The conclusion of the committee should be presented to the assembly (PTO members). RRO goes on to describe a "trial" phase if the investigating committee cites charges. The trial includes conferences with the accused and her supporters, representative(s) of the original investigative committee, and a few new members not involved in the research. This gets rather involved, but it sounds like it's set up to give the accused the best possible consideration.
When the trial date is set, and the accused is notified by registered mail, her rights of membership are automatically suspended until the trial is completed. The result of the trial (really just a scary word for a meeting to discuss the results of the research and the committee's recommendation) is a penalty of some sort. Now, the details becomes public when the penalty recommended by the trial committee is brought before the assembly (PTO members) in the form of a motion. The motion is debatable, and must be approved by majority vote, unless the penalty is expulsion, in which case 2/3 vote is required.
Another possible penalty is to "rescind the motion" which elected this person an officer -- in effect kicking her off the board. According to my RRO book, this type of motion is debatable and requires 2/3 vote or just majority vote when there has been a previous notice.
The point is, there are some procedures your group can follow to investigate this person that are based in sound parlimentary practices. You want to avoid a "witch hunt" mentality - if you use RRO as your guide, you can at least say you're doing what is proper and has stood the test of time.
This will get ugly and personal, but to protect the integrity of your PTO, and its finances, you must pursue at least the investigative phase. Good luck! So sorry your group is in this position.
[ 01-26-2004, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: Critter ]