JeffUrsillo

Understand..appreciate your pointing me in the correct direction

Josh...again, I don't have my copy handy. Is this stated specifically that interpretation of the bylaws falls to the President and not, say, a Bylaws Committee or parliamentarian?

Thanks...I do not have my copy with me this morning....

Does RONR have a sample text that can be used in a bylaws to give an organization the ability to expel a member, for just cause (hand in the till for example)?

yes, I am speaking of an email vote that has a reply deadline of March 10. Thank you for your reply, Richard...

I believe it has, by having in the Bylaws a statement that February 15 is the drop off date for unpaid memberships. I don't have my RONR handy, so I cannot check page 406, as was mentioned above.

Does Roberts Rules speak to a member paying their dues after they have been dropped due to non-payment and if that makes their membership revert back to the beginning of the membership year. In clearer terms (sorry!) Membership year ends Dec. 31. members are dropped on Feb. 15. member pays dues on Feb 28. Is that member's membership considered to start back on January 1 or the date they paid Feb. 28. If a vote occurred for the organizations membership during the time between they were dropped and payed their dues again, would they be eligible to vote if the voting window was still open?

Mr. Brown, I apologize if anything I said could be construed that I did not think any of the responses I was given were inaccurate. That is not the case....As I stated in my recent post, I was operating under a wrong assumption, which was corrected. I also was frustrated by a seeming tangent that did not really pertain to my 2 original questions. I appreciate you taking the time to respond and sum up the answers to my questions. Jeff Ursillo

Josh....Thank you for your input.... I was making an assumption when reading the bylaws where it said "Proposed amendments shall be signed by a minimum of three members and shall be directed to the Executive Council for their perusal". I was assuming that to mean THEY conducted the vote. I now understand that they are not entitled to do so by that language. I appreciate the clarification by all who tried to get it through my thick skull...LOL And, yes, I am aware that we follow RR as well.... and yes, my original post was confusing in hindsight..apologies...

Gary...Thank you for clarifying that for me....Someone in an organization I used to belong to used Nulla poena sine lege as a rationale as to why they COULD do something that our bylaws at the time did not say they could or couldn't. Too late to revisit it at this point... Jeff

Josh, here is the RR for dummies page that I mentioned above. http://www.dummies.com/careers/business-skills/roberts-rules-for-amending-bylaws/

Ok, Josh....Thank you....appreciate the time and advice... Jeff

ok...you keep discussing making motions to the Board. The bylaws committee prepared their report, submitted it to the EC for approval, and getting the approval of a 2/3 majority, they sent it out to the membership, as the bylaws unfortunately say they can do. Not being a jerk, but I fail to see where the confusion is. I quoted the bylaws section that specifies how the amendment is to be handled, they followed it. There has never been any question about if they violated any procedures. My original question had to do with their being able to exclude members of the EC from voting.... Thanks again for your input on the questions I asked... Jeff

Joshua, please accept the following: " Nulla poena sine lege ( lat. - no penalty without a law) is a legal principle, requiring that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law. This principle is accepted and codified in modern democratic states, including the United States, as a basic requirement of the rule of law. It’s based on old English law which states: Everything which is not forbidden is allowed." Applying the above to the discussion, since the bylaws do not forbid or rule a specific entity to conduct the vote, then the committee is allowed to do so....at least IMHO...

Josh, Thanks for your reply... unfortunately the Bylaws do allow the bylaws Committee to conduct the vote, as it does not specify who DOES handle it.... Here is the bylaw in question: "These By-Laws may be amended by a majority vote of the ballots cast. Voting shall be by mail ballot (regularmail or e-mail). Proposed amendments shall be signed by a minimum of three members and shall be directed tothe Executive Council for their perusal. Once the language of the amendment is approved by the ExecutiveCouncil it shall be published in the newsletter along with a ballot to be voted upon by the general membership. Adeadline shall be established for return of all ballots.""

this is the best explanation I could find.. " Bylaw Contents Bylaws contain the details pertaining to a corporation’s name and location, board of director positions, election procedures, stock certificates and dividends, meeting protocols and any other topics the board members believe are fundamental to the governance of the organization. Restatements There are instances when sections in the bylaw document need clarification. In an instance in which the wording seems confusing to board members or needs to be stated in a different manner to better clarify the statement, the section would be restated to reflect the clarification. Amendments There may be times when board members decide elements in the bylaw document are no longer relevant or valid. In this instance, the board could opt to amend the bylaw document by making the needed substitution, alteration or omission. Unlike the restatement that simply reaffirms a statement in the bylaws, the amended bylaw’s meaning is changed. Restate or Amend If there is an occasion that requires a fundamental change such as an amendment or a restatement, the board may need to make a determination about whether to restate a confusing bylaw, alter its meaning in a significant way or omit the statement completely. If changes must be made to the bylaws, the board uses the protocols outlined in the bylaws for making amendments or alterations. From BizFluent.com

Does RONR address the difference between the two? I read on "RONR for Dummies" (not sure how accurate that is, hence my question) that amendments need to go through the entire voting process, but a restating can be issued by the head officer of the organization. Jeff

Joshua, the second sentence states that voting can be by mail or email. Since it does not say the EC can't vote by email, there is nothing prohibiting them from doing so... Three steps to amend the Bylaws: 1: Three members draft a proposed amendment and sign off on it 2: The amendment goes to the EC for approval allowing for discussion. 3: once approved by the EC, the proposed amendment and ballot are sent to the membership via email or regular mail...

The Bylaws allow email voting in cases such as this. Executive Council is the Board. Here is the Section from the Bylaws on voting for the Bylaws: "Article XI Amendments These By-Laws may be amended by a majority vote of the ballots cast. Voting shall be by mail ballot (regular mail or e-mail). Proposed amendments shall be signed by a minimum of three members and shall be directed to the Executive Council for their perusal. Once the language of the amendment is approved by the Executive Council it shall be published in the newsletter along with a ballot to be voted upon by the general membership. A deadline shall be established for return of all ballots." Also, what they are proposing is a complete replacement of the current Bylaws not an amendment, and they will not release a document that shows what changes were made....

Thanks for your reply, Joshua...The vote was conducted via email, so they just did not send the proposed bylaws and ballot to myself and the President...

actually, there are several questions here.... About 6 months ago, I asked the current President of an organization to which I belong to find a replacement for me as the organizations newsletter editor, a board position. I told him I would stay on, no time limit, until he had a replacement. There was no formal letter or email to him resigning my position The request to the membership for a replacement in the newsletter was worded that I had asked the President to find a replacement for me. After 5 months of no responses, I told the President I would stay on and to stop looking for a replacement. There is talk that my rescinding of my request for a replacement needed to be voted on by the Board... Recently, a vote was taken by the Board on a new set of bylaws proposed by the bylaws committee. I was not allowed to vote due to a claim that I was not editor, and that when he received my resignation, the President appointed ME as Interim Editor and therefor not on the Board. They also excluded the President from this vote, because he had initially not wanted to be part of the bylaws committee discussions. So because of that, they felt it was within their right to exclude him from their vote. My questions are these: Is asking to be replaced with no time limit and doing the job until I am replaced considered a resignation, and does the withdrawal of that request need to be voted upon by the Board? Was the Bylaws committee within their right to exclude myself and the president from the vote for the reasons they gave? Jeff Ursillo

The idea of writing some sort of guideline was brought before a Federation's board so that if member clubs had an occurrence or charge if you will of sexual harassment/misconduct, the Federation could supply the club with some sort of guidance. Severalmade the comment that Robert's Rules already has that and if the club states in their Bylaws they are governed by Robert's Rules, we don't need to do anything. My question is the most basic one... is there anything in Robert's rules that deals with this area and if so could someone point me in the right direction? many thanks in advance