Search the Community

Good day all. There is a definite conflict in our bylaws when it comes to elections. In short that section of our bylaws calls for one "Class" of member (Retired) to be able to cast two votes (during the same election for one of the Boards 9 seats, for a "Retired" member), and the other "Class" of member (Active) may only cast a vote for one of the remaining 8 seats, but may not vote for the "Retirees" seat. I was made aware, from my previous post, that under Robert's Rules, there is only one kind of member and that member has but one vote. And that RONR 588 – 591 #2 reads: “When a provision of the bylaws is susceptible to two meanings, one of which conflicts with or renders absurd another bylaw provision, and the other meaning does not, the latter must be taken as the true meaning.” My questions: What, if any, recourse do I have at this point? Do I have to wait until after the upcoming election to contest it? Thanks in advance.

Good day. I have a couple of questions regarding our associations bylaws and upcoming Board election. We have 3 categories of members: 1. Regular (includes active and retired members), 2. Associate and 3. Honorary. Our bylaws state (in part)" Regular members are both active and retired members..." An addendum was added to the bylaws (still questionable as to how) creating a 4th membership class, "Retired Member", that states "one Board seat shall be for a retired member, and shall be elected by retired members"... Just a quick background, originally the reference to "Retired member" was for members of a "sister organization" who would have a seat on our organizations Board, but would only serve in an advisory position (no voting power). That being said I voiced my opinion to the Board and the President that, given the current language, it appears that 1. a Regular (Active) member does not have the right to vote for a "Retired" member" and 2. that since "Regular members" include both active and retired members, this gives retired members the right to vote twice, at the same election, for a seat on the same Board. Am I incorrect in thinking that there is a definite conflict (based upon that language) in our bylaws? And if so, can that conflict have an effect on the upcoming election? Hope it's not too confusing (although it is screwed up). Thanks in advance.

Several years ago my religious organization ended an employment relationship with a professional church worker. The personnel committee, organized as a sub-committee of the general assembly, was responsible for overseeing the matter. This sub-committee sent correspondence to the synodical church leadership concerning the employee relationship that may have had an impact on that persons employment opportunities in sister churches. We believe all of this correspondence falls under the protection of state and federal privacy laws relating to employers/employees, so there was no report regarding this correspondence given to the general assembly. Recently, a member of our assembly became aware of the existence of some of the correspondence. This member firmly believes the nature and content of some of the correspondence should have been shared with the general assembly. Therefore, the member created a motion seeking this correspondence be released to the assembly. This motion was first presented to a sub-committee of the assembly, but failed to progress due to lack of a second. Now the member seeks to present his motion to the entire assembly. To do this, the member will first have to get approval from the assembly to add a new business item not on the adopted agenda for the assembly meeting; our agenda is fixed by our constitution and bylaws, so this business would be considered a changed agenda. If the assembly approves (two-thirds majority required), then the member would present their motion. But we now believe the motion this member seeks is in conflict with state or federal privacy laws, and therefore is out of order. We feel that raising this topic in any form in the general assembly puts the organization at risk for lawsuit from the aggrieved employee due to breach of privacy. My question now is: when does the Chairman have the responsibility to declare the motion is out of order? For example, when the member comes forward to move to change the agenda, it is reasonable to expect that he/she will need to say something about the business they would like to add to the agenda. We cannot say for certain in advance exactly how the member may characterize the new business he wants to bring forth. Therefore, must we wait until he/she has said something about requesting information that would be considered violating the privacy law? And is it reasonable for the Chairman to interrupt the member mid-sentence to declare the motion out of order and prevent the member from making statements that could potentially put the organization at risk of privacy violation? Can we stop the business from moving forward even at the "change the agenda" stage, versus potentially waiting until the entire motion is read (assuming the change-the-agenda motion is successful)?