Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Accessibility to Bylaws


Guest Neil C.

Recommended Posts

I belong to an organization that has been in existance for decades.  Many of the newere members of the organization have never seen a copy of the bylaws. Despite repeated requests to obtain a copy and promises that they wpould be provided, no one has ever received them. Is it possible to make a motion to suspend business (in particular elections) until such time as copies of the Bylaws are made accessible to the membership?  Is a meeting held without accress to the Bylaws for refrence even valid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I belong to an organization that has been in existance for decades. Many of the newere members of the organization have never seen a copy of the bylaws. Despite repeated requests to obtain a copy and promises that they wpould be provided, no one has ever received them.

I think it's time to take a more drastic step than mere requests. Adopt a motion ordering the board to make the bylaws available to all members, and if they do not comply, it's time for some new board members. See FAQ #20 for more information. Since the bylaws are not available, I would act under the assumption that formal disciplinary procedures are required, until it can be determined otherwise.

Is it possible to make a motion to suspend business (in particular elections) until such time as copies of the Bylaws are made accessible to the membership?

No, a motion to "suspend business" is not in order. Motions to postpone individual items of business to the next meeting (which could be adopted again at the next meeting, and so on) would be in order.

Is a meeting held without accress to the Bylaws for refrence even valid?

The fact that members are not able to access the bylaws for reference is a serious violation of RONR and is grounds for discipline against those responsible, but it would not, in and of itself, cause a meeting or the business conducted at the meeting to be invalid.

If and when the bylaws are available, however, it may well be that some provision of the bylaws was not followed, which could cause a meeting (or at least the business conducted at the meeting) to be invalid. Lack of proper notice would invalidate a meeting, for instance, and having less than a quorum present would invalidate the business conducted at the meeting (although after the fact, clear and convincing proof is required that a quorum was not present).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's time to take a more drastic step than mere requests. Adopt a motion ordering the board to make the bylaws available to all members, and if they do not comply, it's time for some new board members. See FAQ #20 for more information. Since the bylaws are not available, I would act under the assumption that formal disciplinary procedures are required, until it can be determined otherwise.

 

Shouldn't this be directed at the secretary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't this be directed at the secretary?

I tend to agree, but I'm wondering if Josh had a particular reason for  directing it to the board.  I also think there needs to be a date certain by which the secretary shall make the bylaws available.  The motion could even direct the secretary to mail (or email) a copy to each member by a certain date, rather than just "make the bylaws available".  That leaves too much wiggle room. 

 

A standing rule that all new members be provided with a copy of the bylaws upon becoming members might be in order as well.  RONR does not require that members actually be provided with a copy of the bylaws, but only that they be available to members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a slight hijack as to what to do in the moment, what would be that proper way for a member to deal with a Chair assuring them "it's in the bylaws" yet the member does not have the bylaws to verify?  I'm talking about a specific ruling like "According to the bylaws, all votes needing a 2/3 majority must be by secret ballot."  Should the motion be Postponed until a copy of the bylaws can be found?  Would Lay on the Table actually be a better motion?  Is there another approach the member should take?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree, but I'm wondering if Josh had a particular reason for  directing it to the board.

I was originally going to suggest the Secretary, but since things are apparently so messed up in this organization, I wonder if the Secretary is the one with the copy.

As a slight hijack as to what to do in the moment, what would be that proper way for a member to deal with a Chair assuring them "it's in the bylaws" yet the member does not have the bylaws to verify?  I'm talking about a specific ruling like "According to the bylaws, all votes needing a 2/3 majority must be by secret ballot."  Should the motion be Postponed until a copy of the bylaws can be found?  Would Lay on the Table actually be a better motion?  Is there another approach the member should take?

I think the proper course of action would be to Appeal and then postpone the motion to the next meeting. All adhering motions (including the Appeal) will be postponed with the main motion. Lay on the Table is not the proper tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ... think the proper course of action would be to Appeal and then postpone the motion to the next meeting. All adhering motions (including the Appeal) will be postponed with the main motion. Lay on the Table is not the proper tool.

 

You wouldn't think that if some members believed the chairman to be making these bylaws up, they could push it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the members are not being provided the bylaws, does the chair have a copy at the meeting?  If so, and the members believe the chair is making stuff up, why wouldn't you advise simply pushing the issue right then?  If the chair does not have a copy, it still seems strategically worthwhile to me to push the issue - "where does it say that?  Why can't you show us?"  I suppose I'm not thinking in terms of what is most 'true' but what will score the most points strategically speaking.  Do you disagree on those terms as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the members are not being provided the bylaws, does the chair have a copy at the meeting?  If so, and the members believe the chair is making stuff up, why wouldn't you advise simply pushing the issue right then?  If the chair does not have a copy, it still seems strategically worthwhile to me to push the issue - "where does it say that?  Why can't you show us?"  I suppose I'm not thinking in terms of what is most 'true' but what will score the most points strategically speaking.  Do you disagree on those terms as well?

Oh, pushing the issue of having access to the bylaws. I'm all for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking that, if the members are close to confident that the president is making up whatever manifulates the assembly his way, just go ahead.  Using S. Cad's example from post 6 (though I would prefer something less intricate):  someone makes a motion.  The chairman selects tellers and tells them to distribute ballots.  So one of the dubious members raises a point of order, to the effect that the rules in RONR prescribe a voice vote.  The chair rules the point of order not well taken, in that the bylaws require a 2/3 vote, by ballot.  One of the members appeals the ruling.  In debate, the chair cites the requirement that he says is in the bylaws, and the doubting members just plain assert that no, the bylaws have no such requirement (bluffing, because they don't know, one way or the other).  If the vote supports the chair's ruling, they can go ahead and take a 2/3 vote by ballot, or now try to postpone the motion.  While, iIf the vote overturns the chair's ruling, the assembly votes by voice, accepting the consequences if it turns out the bylaws require what the chair says they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking that, if the members are close to confident that the president is making up whatever manifulates the assembly his way, just go ahead.  Using S. Cad's example from post 6 (though I would prefer something less intricate):  someone makes a motion.  The chairman selects tellers and tells them to distribute ballots.  So one of the dubious members raises a point of order, to the effect that the rules in RONR prescribe a voice vote.  The chair rules the point of order not well taken, in that the bylaws require a 2/3 vote, by ballot.  One of the members appeals the ruling.  In debate, the chair cites the requirement that he says is in the bylaws, and the doubting members just plain assert that no, the bylaws have no such requirement (bluffing, because they don't know, one way or the other).  If the vote supports the chair's ruling, they can go ahead and take a 2/3 vote by ballot, or now try to postpone the motion.  While, iIf the vote overturns the chair's ruling, the assembly votes by voice, accepting the consequences if it turns out the bylaws require what the chair says they do.

Again, while I don't think there is anything stopping the members from handling an Appeal based on guessing (or bluffing), I don't recommend it. This certainly doesn't seem wise in this particular case, since the vote will be null and void if the chair turns out to be correct. Additionally, provisions requiring a 2/3 vote and/or a ballot vote for certain motions are not unusual, so I don't know why the members are so confident that the chair is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, while I don't think there is anything stopping the members from handling an Appeal based on guessing (or bluffing), I don't recommend it....

 

Of course I do agree that generally it's extremely inadvisable.  But ...

 

... . This certainly doesn't seem wise in this particular case, since the vote will be null and void if the chair turns out to be correct....

 

That's why I mentioned accepting the consequences.  I can see many inconsequential consequences, such as, if the main motion is to deny non-members any access to the club swimming pool, rifle range, or crocodile pit, then until the error is discovered and the motion ruled null, the non-members will have had to deal with the deprivation.  On the other hand if the motion were to buy a new fire truck at a cost necessitation mortgaging the firehouse, and the truck were bought, then yikes indeed.

 

... Additionally, provisions requiring a 2/3 vote and/or a ballot vote for certain motions are not unusual ...

 

I know, which is why I would have preferred another example, l but I went with what I had, having an ingrained horror of J.J.-esque riotous proliferation of examples.  In my own experience, some years ago, a regularly overbearing member saw that the momentum of debate on a question was not going his way, declared, purely out of spite (because there would otherwise be no point), that a vote by roll call could be required on demand by any member, and he was demanding it.  In fact I was presiding, and was very green, and while I had read my RONR (1990) once already, and had it there by my elbow, yet I only vaguely remembered the characteristics of the methods of voting, and did vaguely remember that one member has the right to demand dome things, and despaired of keeping the assembly waiting while I pored over the 800 pages, so I gritted my teeth and went along.  (The secretary tossed his pen on the desk and had to be coaxed out of walking out, as he was familiar with this guy's shenanigans.)

 

(Only later did I discover how easy and quick it would have been to find "roll call" in the index, turn to the page, and see how ridiculously untrue was the guy's claim.)

 

 ... so I don't know why the members are so confident that the chair is wrong.

 

Of course you don't know:  you can't (as can't anyone else), which is why that confidence is the basic assumption of the hypothetical.  I'm thinking that the very confident members have been burned by this joker in the past, as in the real-life example I just gave.  For that matter, even if I had not had my RONR-9th with me at all, I could have ruled that there is no such requirement and that we would vote, as was our custom (and was quite practical) by show of hands; and that anyone who had a problem with that had a right either to appeal that decison or to put a sock in it.  But I was not that distrustful of that member (yet), nor at all confident in myslef.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...