Whose rule prevails

[Guest Nancyc]

When a parent group has a rule that a 24 hour notice must be given for all meetings is it permissible for a sub group to make that time line more restrictive, say 48 hours.  My understanding is a rule can always be made more restrictive but not less.

[Josh Martin]

I don't think a definitive answer to this is possible without reviewing the rules in question, which is beyond the scope of this forum. It may well be that the parent organization intended for the 24 hour notice to be the minimum requirement and that its subordinate units could require more notice if they wished, but it may also be the case that the parent organization intended for it to be 24 hours notice, period. It's also possible that the rule in question only applies to meetings of the parent organization, and subordinate units can adopt whatever notice requirements they wish for their own use.

I suggest asking the parent organization for their views on the matter.

There is nothing in RONR which supports the idea that a subordinate unit can always adopt a more restrictive rule than that of the parent organization.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

1 hour ago, Guest Nancyc said:

When a parent group has a rule that a 24 hour notice must be given for all meetings,

is it permissible for a sub group to make that time line more restrictive, say 48 hours?

My understanding is a rule can always be made more restrictive but not less.

Yes (it is permissible for a sub-group to make a time line more or less restrictive than the superior organization).

Just because a national organization has a certain rule regarding "previous notice" for its meetings, that does not imply that 100% of the state affiliate groups must have an identical rule for its meetings.

***

>> My understanding is a rule can always be made more restrictive but not less.

A moot point, since there is no relationship between the two levels of the common organization, when it comes to a previous notice requirement.

If the bylaws are different between organizations, then the rules are different between the organizations.

The inferior organization only need to comply with "requisite points", i.e., the criteria which must be obeyed to maintain affiliation. -- And typically this has to do with things like dues, and oaths, and mission statement (purpose), more so than parliamentary procedure.

Parliamentary procedure isn't a requisite point, unless the criteria for maintaining affiliation say otherwise.