D_K Posted February 8, 2017 at 05:24 PM Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 at 05:24 PM The bylaws of the organization provide that officers serve a term of "two years or until their successors have been elected." The bylaws further provide that elections are held at an organizational meeting that "shall be held in January of each odd numbered year." All meetings are held at the call of the president. The president failed to call the meeting in January and scheduled it for a date in February. A few members of the group are grousing about the fact that the bylaws say the elections "shall" be held in January. They have argued that "shall" means "must" and is mandatory, and thus elections cannot be held in any other month and the election in February will be invalid. To me this in an absurd result that is to be avoided under the principles of interpretation (RONR pg. 570-71). Is there anything else in RONR that I can point to that will support my argument that an election held in February is valid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted February 8, 2017 at 05:31 PM Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 at 05:31 PM You are a way off from having to make any argument at all. "Grousing" doesn't count for anything in the parliamentary sense. These members will have to raise a point of order at a meeting before the issue is addressed. Then, you may find yourself making a case if the point is appealed one way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted February 8, 2017 at 11:22 PM Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 at 11:22 PM If, for some reason, the elections are not conducted when they should have been, the society just conducts them as soon as possible. You don't have to wait until the next regular elections roll around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_K Posted February 9, 2017 at 12:58 PM Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 at 12:58 PM Thank you. Is there any page in RONR I can cite to for support of that argument? I'd like to be prepared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 9, 2017 at 01:14 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 at 01:14 PM 6 minutes ago, D_K said: Thank you. Is there any page in RONR I can cite to for support of that argument? I'd like to be prepared. I'm pretty sure there aren't any, except for the principles of interpretation on p. 588 - 591, which essentially say, be stupid as infrequently as possible for human beings: for example, when your bylaws say conduct elections in January and, woops, it's February, you don't need to explode the galaxy with your Death Star, you don't even have to dissolve your organization or even plunge it into paralysis until next January when you can maybe conduct your elections in the right month, just conduct them as soon as possible, as perhaps Richard Brown would have advised you had he not been plunged into the depths of despair in contemplation of your existential constitutional crisis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 9, 2017 at 08:51 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 at 08:51 PM You do it as soon as possible, and if you want to make a particular point about how displeased you are that the rule wasn't followed, you move to censure the person responsible. Or else you just scowl at him until he feels bad. Waiting a year or, in your case, two years is just nonsensical, absurd, and not in the least bit unmeaningless, and they should be embarrassed even to suggest it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 9, 2017 at 08:59 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 at 08:59 PM "not in the least bit unmeaningless" It's going to take me a while to figure this one out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 9, 2017 at 09:27 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 at 09:27 PM 26 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: "not in the least bit unmeaningless" It's going to take me a while to figure this one out. Wait, you understood the other Gary's post more than this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 9, 2017 at 09:34 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 at 09:34 PM Sure. It's just a question of getting used to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 10, 2017 at 04:00 AM Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 at 04:00 AM 6 hours ago, George Mervosh said: Wait, you understood the other Gary's post more than this? 6 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: Sure. It's just a question of getting used to them. What's in a name? That which we call arroz By any other name would taste like rice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts