Duey Posted June 7, 2017 at 08:38 PM Report Share Posted June 7, 2017 at 08:38 PM Is there a rule regarding the setting of a precedent as related to what is written into the by-laws vs. what is actually been in practice for 20 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexis Hunt Posted June 7, 2017 at 09:33 PM Report Share Posted June 7, 2017 at 09:33 PM Any actions taken that contradict the bylaws are null and void, no matter how it has been. A point of order can be made about this at any time. If the members wish to keep the current practice, they should amend the bylaws to permit it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted June 8, 2017 at 01:17 AM Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 at 01:17 AM What is this practice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Duey Posted June 8, 2017 at 06:24 PM Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 at 06:24 PM 20 years ago there was a team put in place to acquire additional property for expansion. The wording in the minutes does not show total authority to buy and/or sell the property on behalf of the business. However, the standing team was, at some point, given permission to move forward and have been acting on behalf of the business (in good faith I might add and with integrity) for the past twenty years. Numerous properties have been purchased and/or sold to attempt to complete the over-all plan. Most recently it was determined that two pieces of property needed to be sold to assist in the purchase of a more advantageous piece. A vote was taken by the board to sell the property in order to purchase to additional plot. This is when a question arose as to the authority this team has to act as agents without always securing board authority. Due to the length of time (20 years) and the amount of transactions taken I just wondered if that hasn't set a precedent which supersedes the afore mentioned documentation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 9, 2017 at 12:09 AM Report Share Posted June 9, 2017 at 12:09 AM 5 hours ago, Guest Duey said: Due to the length of time (20 years) and the amount of transactions taken I just wondered if that hasn't set a precedent which supersedes the afore mentioned documentation? No. Written rules always prevail over custom, no matter how old the custom is. The organization should amend its rules if it wishes to continue this practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexis Hunt Posted June 10, 2017 at 03:51 PM Report Share Posted June 10, 2017 at 03:51 PM It may also be a good practice for the board to ratify the actions that were taken so as to clearly say that they are approved of, and protect the agents from being accused of having acted without authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duey Posted June 10, 2017 at 04:31 PM Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2017 at 04:31 PM Thanks guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted June 12, 2017 at 12:12 PM Report Share Posted June 12, 2017 at 12:12 PM On 6/10/2017 at 0:31 PM, Duey said: Thanks guys! Oh for pity's sake , stop: you can thank everyone, but it's not nearly done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted June 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM Report Share Posted June 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM The post of Posted Thursday at 02:24 PM makes it clear that it is ambiguous as to what the team is authorized to do. -- That is, unless the bylaws do say something about it, which the original post suggests: On 6/7/2017 at 4:38 PM, Duey said: what is written into the by-laws ... So, Guest Duey, what do you see in the bylaws (explictly, verbatim, please, with my heart in my mouth) that says that the team cannot buy properties? By the same token, how was the team, put in place to acquire properties, put in place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts