josh Posted March 24, 2016 at 03:11 PM Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 at 03:11 PM I am the parliamentarian and sergeant-at-arms for a local organization I am. The national organization changed the bylaws changing the name and rank of a postion and adding a new one; however, when I brought this up to my local chapter it was voted down. I was wondering if there was a why to change the local bylaws to conform to that of our national bylaws, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted March 24, 2016 at 03:23 PM Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 at 03:23 PM The bylaws could be amended following the procedures described in the bylaws for amending them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 24, 2016 at 03:37 PM Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 at 03:37 PM Or your national bylaws may require that the local bylaws confirm to the change(s) as a condition of being a part of the national association. Better check them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted March 24, 2016 at 05:08 PM Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 at 05:08 PM 1 hour ago, josh said: The national organization changed the bylaws changing the name and rank of a position and adding a new one; however, when I brought this up to my local chapter it was voted down. I was wondering if there was a why to change the local bylaws to conform to that of our national bylaws, It doesn't work that way. Just because a superior organization makes internal changes to its bylaws, that by itself is not an automatic order from on-high to mandate that the inferior organizations instantly and automatically comply, in parallel. The inferior organization, to maintain affiliation, only need to comply with "requisite points" (this is the technical term from Robert's Rules of Order). The requisite points, typically, are few and far between. -- Things like (a.) pay the dues; (b.) inform the superior body of amendments to the bylaws; and the like. *** Example: Just because the international/national organization . . . (a.) has a board of 16 members. (b.) has a fiscal year of July to June. (c.) holds a Christmas party annually. (d.) performs a "financial review" instead of a true "audit". . . . does not imply that each and every affiliate organization must do likewise -- unless those things are requisite points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 24, 2016 at 06:09 PM Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 at 06:09 PM 57 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said: It doesn't work that way. Just because a superior organization makes internal changes to its bylaws, that by itself is not an automatic order from on-high to mandate that the inferior organizations instantly and automatically comply, in parallel. The inferior organization, to maintain affiliation, only need to comply with "requisite points" (this is the technical term from Robert's Rules of Order). The requisite points, typically, are few and far between. -- Things like (a.) pay the dues; (b.) inform the superior body of amendments to the bylaws; and the like. *** Example: Just because the international/national organization . . . (a.) has a board of 16 members. (b.) has a fiscal year of July to June. (c.) holds a Christmas party annually. (d.) performs a "financial review" instead of a true "audit". . . . does not imply that each and every affiliate organization must do likewise -- unless those things are requisite points. Now this is a response with which I can agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.