Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Al Dunbar

Members
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I agree the wording is confusing, as is the intent of the statement that concerned you. Some might assume that it means that the rules apply only to the XXX party and no other party. One also wonders how it would affect those rules present that happen to be inclusive in nature rather than exclusive. đŸ˜‰
  2. Sorry that I misspoke slightly. I didn't mean to suggest that it would actually qualify as a bylaw amendment, just that it might be seen as having a similar effect if the members thought that it set a precedent that could not be challenged.
  3. There would be no logical reason to have electronic meetings without the attendees being considered to be doing so "in person". That said, the apparent ambiguity would best be resolved by having the bylaw allowing electronic meetings state this explicitly so the question need not be asked.
  4. Further to the comments of Mr. Honemann, if a motion to interpret a bylaw in a particular way was considered reasonable such that it would bind the organization to that interpretation into the future, that would be, effectively, a bylaw amendment. And that cannot be achieved without proper notice in advance of the special meeting.
  5. I expect that the two thirds rule was selected originally because, while a simple majority could mean that a decision could be taken in a situation where the number of nays was very close to the number of yeas, two thirds means that there would be at least two yeas for every nay, which would be a more significant kind of majority. Well then, why not three-quarters, four fifths, five sixths, and on and on, one might ask. I think because going down that path would lead to requiring unanimity if one could not draw the line somewhere "reasonable". It might also seem to question the good faith o
×
×
  • Create New...