Bylaw

[Ariann M. Pradia]

This is what the bylaw currently states:

 D. On-Leave Members
On-Leave Members are those who have met all financial obligations and/or active members in good standing may request a one-year leave of absence. A member who is eligible for a leave of absence must declare her intentions by letter to the Membership committee by December 1st. If approved, the member will assume “leave of absence” status at the beginning of the fiscal year.
 

The membership voted to grant her LOA after the December 1st deadline.  Did they violate the bylaw?  If so, what can be done to correct the mistake?

[Ariann M. Pradia]

Just now, George Mervosh said:

Where does it say they need to approve it by December 1?

What I posted is what it states.  You have a valid question.

[George Mervosh]

Just now, Ariann Pradia McCoy said:

What I posted is what it states.  You have a valid question.

I deleted my question because I thought I misunderstood yours, but apparently not.  Since you think it's a valid question, do you think your rules have an answer to it?  RONR does not.  

[Ariann M. Pradia]

8 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

Where does it say they need to approve it by December 1?

I think the bylaw may have a gray area that needs to be addressed. 

d.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Ariann Pradia McCoy said:

This is what the bylaw currently states:

 D. On-Leave Members
On-Leave Members are those who have met all financial obligations and/or active members in good standing may request a one-year leave of absence. A member who is eligible for a leave of absence must declare her intentions by letter to the Membership committee by December 1st. If approved, the member will assume “leave of absence” status at the beginning of the fiscal year.
 

The membership voted to grant her LOA after the December 1st deadline.  Did they violate the bylaw?  If so, what can be done to correct the mistake?

I think  it is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws, including this provision.  It does appear to me, however, that if the member notified the Membership Committee  by December 1, there is no problem even if the request was acted on later.  It will be up to your organization to determine it this rule is in he nature of a rule  of order or a standing rule (even though contained in the bylaws) and may therefore be suspended.

[George Mervosh]

4 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I think  it is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws, including this provision.  It does appear to me, however, that if the member notified the Membership Committee  by December 1, there is no problem even if the request was acted on later.  It will be up to your organization to determine it this rule is in he nature of a rule  of order or a standing rule (even though contained in the bylaws) and may therefore be suspended.

I don't think there's any doubt that this is not a special rule of order as RONR defines it.  As to interpretation, if we take Ms. McCoy's word for it that the bylaws only say what she posted regarding the matter, the membership committee is going to have to be in session all day December 1 waiting, just in case a notification (or notifications) comes in, and then act on it that same day.  That sounds like an absurd interpretation for them to make, in my opinion. I agree with her that they need to further address this matter.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

4 hours ago, Ariann Pradia McCoy said:

This is what the bylaw currently states:

***

D. On-Leave Members
S1.) On-Leave Members are those who have met all financial obligations and/or active members in good standing may request a one-year leave of absence.

S2.) A member who is eligible for a leave of absence must declare her intentions by letter to the Membership committee by December 1st.

S3.) If approved, the member will assume “leave of absence” status at the beginning of the fiscal year.
***

The membership voted to grant her LOA after the December 1st deadline.  

Q1.) Did they violate the bylaw?  

Q2.) If so, what can be done to correct the mistake?

Your rule (see S1) puts a burden on the submitter.

Your rule S1 does not put a burden on the approver, nor the recipient.

***

In reply to Q1.

So, if a letter were to be delivered on December 1, at 11:59 p.m., the body doing the approving must necessarily "violate" the deadline of December 1, because the body won't meet until December 2 or later, when 100% of the submissions have been compiled and sorted into a format ready to be moved for adoption.

So, "No", the approving body violates no rule which implies, "postmarks of letters later than December 1st shall not be a valid request for leave."

Since the recipient is a committee (viz., "Membership Committee"), then the body responsible for approval won't even suspect there is a list of requesters until the Membership Committee presents its post-December First committee report -- to the board or general membership (or the body who does the approving).

***

Your Q2 is moot.

The body who does the approval has no applicable rule regarding when they must approve any submission.

In theory, the approval body may get around to it well past the beginning of the "fiscal year."

And no cited rule will have been violated.

 

 

[Ariann M. Pradia]

Thank each of you for your responses.  So that we are clear.  The member made the request for a LOA on March 26th.

[Robert B Fish]

51 minutes ago, Ariann Pradia McCoy said:

The member made the request for a LOA on March 26th.

Under the bylaws, she would be eligible to request a LOA for the following year.  Question for you: what would happen if she simply acted AS IF she were on LOA beginning immediately?  i.e. didn't attend meetings and didn't pay dues?

-Bob

[George Mervosh]

1 hour ago, Ariann Pradia McCoy said:

So that we are clear.  The member made the request for a LOA on March 26th.

With all due, this information was necessary in post #1 since it makes almost everything that followed (except Mr. Fish's reply) pretty useless. 

[Ariann M. Pradia]

She would be terminated

[Dan Honemann]

36 minutes ago, Ariann Pradia McCoy said:

She would be terminated

Which seems rather drastic.