Plenty to be learned by any volunteer (or otherwise) organization:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -bill.html

There but for the grace of God, went many non-profits.
I belonged to a re-enacting group aseveral years ago and once got a open letter to the membership I thought the guy in question should have lawyered up for. To this day, I have no idea why anyone would have thought that a lengthy, drama-laden diatribe on what this guy did to offend the membership (including doing things on his own time, on his own street, away from group activities) was a good idea. I didn't even like the guy in question, but I felt bad for him.
The problem with non-profits is you can't hire a professional PR person to handle your communications. And thus, these things happen.
Frankly, this group probably got what was coming to them due to some really poor decisions. That they focused on only '13 people outside the group' getting the publication is really grasping, I think.
Trevor's right, this is a good lesson for any non-profit group. ANY official communications need only be filled with sunshine and happiness. Anything else doesn't belong there, it only makes you look like a bunch of unprofessional oafs.

I recently had to be witness to an internal situation where some member of a group I work with on occasion had to officially suspend a certain individual from operational service for some infraction.

The official written "bulletin" was terse and to the point. As it should have been. I had to go to an official to find out what was going on, completely informally and off the record. And I know enough to know there are three sides to any such story, although obviously the "miscreant" would have "some 'splainin' to do" if anything I heard was true......

You can put the word out in print that Joe Smedlap isn't running trains anymore and leave it at that. That's a matter of fact. It's when you start putting in print as to why he isn't running trains anymore, you open yourself for all kinds of trouble.

An open letter regarding disputes is just asking for trouble. Information should only be distributed on a need to know basis. Those not party to the matter should be informed that the person in question is suspended pending the conclusion of an investigation/dispute and that no comment can be given.