Admission to membership

[Robert B Fish]

In an organization, authority to admit members is given in the bylaws to the secretary.  "The secretary shall admit to membership applicants who made paid the required fee and who meet the membership requirements."  The membership requirements sometimes need some interpretation by the secretary.  

 

A situation occurred in which he/she decided that an applicant was admitted and communicated that to the applicant.  A week later he judged that the applicant did not meet the requirements and rescinded the admission.  

 

Since the membership requirements sometimes need interpretation and the secretary is given authority to admit members, It's my feeling that affirmative action by the secretary in a membership admittance cannot be rescinded if the applicant was informed of the action.  (Of course, if the applicant falsified the application - not a consideration in this case - he could be disciplined and ejected.)

 

How does the panel feel?

 

-Bob

 

[Josh Martin]

In an organization, authority to admit members is given in the bylaws to the secretary.  "The secretary shall admit to membership applicants who made paid the required fee and who meet the membership requirements."  The membership requirements sometimes need some interpretation by the secretary.  

 

A situation occurred in which he/she decided that an applicant was admitted and communicated that to the applicant.  A week later he judged that the applicant did not meet the requirements and rescinded the admission.  

 

Since the membership requirements sometimes need interpretation and the secretary is given authority to admit members, It's my feeling that affirmative action by the secretary in a membership admittance cannot be rescinded if the applicant was informed of the action.  (Of course, if the applicant falsified the application - not a consideration in this case - he could be disciplined and ejected.)

 

How does the panel feel?

 

It is, of course, up to the organization to interpret its own bylaws. Personally, I'm a bit skeptical that the cited language gives the Secretary the authority to interpret the membership requirements.

 

Focusing purely on RONR, a motion to accept an individual to membership cannot be rescinded when the applicant has been informed of the action. It seems reasonable that the same principles would apply when an individual decides to admit a member, however, I don't think these principles apply when an individual is ineligible for membership. Assuming the Secretary has the authority to interpret the membership requirements (which is not clear to me), then it seems the action was proper.

[George Mervosh]

Bob, why not just apply your knowledge of the facts and your knowledge of these rules to RONR (11th ed.), p. 308 c) ?

[J. J.]

It is, of course, up to the organization to interpret its own bylaws. Personally, I'm a bit skeptical that the cited language gives the Secretary the authority to interpret the membership requirements.

 

Focusing purely on RONR, a motion to accept an individual to membership cannot be rescinded when the applicant has been informed of the action. It seems reasonable that the same principles would apply when an individual decides to admit a member, however, I don't think these principles apply when an individual is ineligible for membership. Assuming the Secretary has the authority to interpret the membership requirements (which is not clear to me), then it seems the action was proper.

 

I would be worried about a secretary that says, five years down the pike, "X isn't eligible." 

 

I think that once the person becomes a member, even incorrectly, they acquire the rights of membership.  I think the person has a right to process.  That said, "X is not eligible for membership because of ____ , " would be sufficient charge.

[Guest Edgar]

How does the panel feel?

I can't speak for the panel (there's a panel?) but I feel pretty good. The sun is out, the sky is blue, and I left work early.

[Josh Martin]

I would be worried about a secretary that says, five years down the pike, "X isn't eligible." 

 

I think that once the person becomes a member, even incorrectly, they acquire the rights of membership.  I think the person has a right to process.  That said, "X is not eligible for membership because of ____ , " would be sufficient charge.

 

Let's say that instead of the Secretary making decisions unilaterally, the society adopts a motion that X shall be admitted as a member. It later turns out that X is not eligible for membership because of some provision in the bylaws. Wouldn't that mean the motion admitting X as a member conflicts with the bylaws, and therefore constitutes a continuing breach?

 

If so, I believe the same principles apply here, as it would seem unusual to suggest that an individual's decision could not be challenged, while the assembly's decision could be. I could see a reasonable argument that the Secretary could not make the determination on his own, but should report the error to the assembly.

[Rev Ed]

I would argue that if the Secretary (or any individual or group) has to interpret the qualification for membership then then qualifications need to be amended to make the qualification(s) objective.    Although I am personally concerned about letting one person interpret membership qualifications to begin with.

 

Example of why the membership qualification(s) need to be objective are:

 

1)  Where you live.  Objective: "A member must live within 10 k.m. of the organization's clubhouse."  Subjective:  "A member must be able to travel to and from the clubhouse."

 

2)  Education.  Objective: "A member must have received a post secondary degree" or "A member must have received a post secondary degree in Accounting" or "A member must have received a degree from the University of ____."  Subjective: "A member must have received a post secondary degree from a recognized institution" or "A member must have taken post secondary education."

 

In the first case, the ability to travel to and from the clubhouse may be different for different people.  For example, I live in Toronto, but if I travel to Chicago a lot, then I could go to the clubhouse in Chicago a lot while the organization is trying to attract locals.

 

In the second case, if the organization want members who have completed a post secondary degree, any degree or a specific one, or attended a specific University or College then the membership requirements should specifically state as such.  Anything that is not objective allows the Secretary (or any other individual or group) allows for decisions that may or may not be correct at the time, or after words.

 

However, once made a member, the membership could only be rescinded if the By-laws allow for it, or if the member did something to warrant being expelled (such as falsifying the membership application form.)

[Josh Martin]

However, once made a member, the membership could only be rescinded if the By-laws allow for it, or if the member did something to warrant being expelled (such as falsifying the membership application form.)

 

Even if it does take formal disciplinary procedures, as J. J. suggests, I think "not being eligible for membership" would be sufficient grounds to remove a member.

[J. J.]

Let's say that instead of the Secretary making decisions unilaterally, the society adopts a motion that X shall be admitted as a member. It later turns out that X is not eligible for membership because of some provision in the bylaws. Wouldn't that mean the motion admitting X as a member conflicts with the bylaws, and therefore constitutes a continuing breach?

 

If so, I believe the same principles apply here, as it would seem unusual to suggest that an individual's decision could not be challenged, while the assembly's decision could be. I could see a reasonable argument that the Secretary could not make the determination on his own, but should report the error to the assembly.

 

I honesty do not think so.  The society, rightly or wrongly, made the decision to admit the member.  The motion "that X be admitted to membership" might be null and void, but X is still clothed in the rights of membership.  Just like you could not rescind the motion, I think that once X is informed, you would have to go through a disciplinary process to remove him.  I think that the charge, that X is ineligible for membership, would be enough.

[Rev Ed]

True, but I have stated, this is why the qualification to be a member has to be objectively (and clearly written too) or else the question of whether or not someone is a member is not clear cut.  Allowing the Secretary (or anyone else) to make an interpretation about whether or not a person is a member is the issue - the qualifications are thus not clear in this case which is causing the problem.

[George Mervosh]

 I could see a reasonable argument that the Secretary could not make the determination on his own, but should report the error to the assembly.

 

I would make that argument.  What happens after that report is made?  One presumes the assembly is going to want some proof of ineligibility before they decide the matter, it's just that J.J. feels some extra procedural steps are necessary while his membership status is up for consideration, and I find it hard to disagree with him on this.

[Guest Villő]

... The motion "that X be admitted to membership" might be null and void, but X is still clothed in the rights of membership.  ...

 

Sorta-kinda-maybe like, "that the clubhouse be painted red", may have violated a bylaw, but once it's done, the remedy is "that the clubhouse paint be stripped", which should require a trial and a two-thirds vote?

 

Membership is the most basic right of members, yes? and if a spiteful and/or malicious 51% can remove someone's membership by raising a point of order (Joe Blow is/was ineligible for membership, which even with very tight and objective qualifications can always be argued, given enough spite or malice), then appealing and over ruling the chair, that's not nearly the protection of the 2/3 to expel standard. (Though in blatant cases, a good chair would not allow the appeal.) So it seems to me, over to the experts...

[Robert B Fish]

re:  "...apply your knowledge of the facts and your knowledge of these rules..."

 

I was viewing the situation as one in which the assembly - in this case through its bylaws - appointed a committee "with power" - in this case, the power to act for the assembly to admit members.  In this case the committee has but one member, the secretary.  When he/she, acting between meeting of the assembly, makes a determination that the applicant is admitted and communicates that to the applicant,I was viewing that as final in the sense of p308c.  Assuming as Rev. Ed noted, the specific requirement is subjective and he made a good faith determination that the applicant qualified, he may not rescind the action by "changing hie mind."

 

Thanks for all the input...and that to follow.

 

-Bob

[Gary Novosielski]

I think of the secretary as being empowered to accept routine memberships which meet standard criteria.

 

If a question arises about which the secretary is in doubt, or a decision is made which the secretary believes was in error, then the question should be put to the assembly.   I concur that once the new member is informed of his acceptance, the decision cannot be rescinded but must follow removal procedures.

 

I see this as analogous in some ways to a committee of tellers which is in doubt on how a particular ballot should be handed.  They are empowered to handle ordinary matters but not extraordinary ones, which they must refer to the assembly.