Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Clarification of State Statutes


LSCHelper

Recommended Posts

Small, not for profit corporation chartered in Texas.

Texas statutes state the following:

(c)  The board of directors may amend or repeal the bylaws, or adopt new bylaws, unless:

(1)  this chapter or the corporation's certificate of formation wholly or partly reserves the power exclusively to the corporation's members;

(2)  the management of the corporation is vested in the corporation's members; or

(3)  in amending, repealing, or adopting a bylaw, the members expressly provide that the board of directors may not amend or repeal the bylaw.

The charter does not wholly of partly reserve the power exclusively to the corporation's members, the management of the corporation is not vested the the corporation.s members.

I think that the wording in the statute requires that each bylaw item have the following statement "the members expressly provide that the BOD may not amend or repeal the bylaw".

My question is: must the provisions of (3) above be stated for each bylaw item or can a blanket statement be made by the members, in the bylaws, that "the members expressly provide that the BOD may not amend or repeal the (these) bylaws". (Or words to this effect). I believe the Interpretation of this question depends on the definition of the word 'bylaw' in the statutes. (one or plural)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Godelfan said:

Unfortunately, we cannot provide legal advice here.

I think it would be much more accurate to say: "Fortunately, we are cautioned not to attempt to offer legal advice here in this forum for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that if we talk about the law we are even less likely to know what we're talking about than when we talk about Robert's Rules of Order (which is seldom very much)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think it would be much more accurate to say: "Fortunately, we are cautioned not to attempt to offer legal advice here in this forum for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that if we talk about the law we are even less likely to know what we're talking about than when we talk about Robert's Rules of Order (which is seldom very much)."

I'll go with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think it would be much more accurate to say: "Fortunately, we are cautioned not to attempt to offer legal advice here in this forum for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that if we talk about the law we are even less likely to know what we're talking about than when we talk about Robert's Rules of Order (which is seldom very much)."

Sorry, Dan, but you are not qualified to make such a statement, since you always know very much what you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...