Gerry

Mr Honeman - i have had 3 family members tried to find the "16 replies to my specific question and we cannot seem to locate them. The only response we are getting is your saying the Mr Martin responded. Can you kindly send his response as I have troble getting access to anything but yours? Thank you

I guess my general question is if by whatever reason - two by-laws conflict with each other in that in this case one by-law says cant rent slips ( and therefore the lifts on them) and the other implies that they can - which one prevails - the older by-law which is more established or the newer one because it is more recent? Does Roberts Rules have any criteria which by-law prevails when two conflict with each other?

On 3/25/2021 at 10:03 AM, Joshua Katz said:

When you say the owners have been renting them out based on this, do you mean the organization has, via a point of order and ruling, approved of this interpretation? If so, that seems to answer the question - in doing so, the organization must have also decided that Section 11 is the governing one here. If not, by acting, they took the risk that the organization would not interpret the bylaws that way.

Anyway, the default answer is that your organization, not us here, interprets your bylaws. By way of guidance, though, if there is a genuine conflict, there is a general rule that the more specific rule governs. It seems to me that, if Section 11 allows for renting out slips, then it is the more specific. Ultimately, it is up to your organization.

I have to admit, I don't follow any of this. I presume your rules require a 2/3 vote for the bylaws committee to report out a recommendation? As to the lift owners' argument, I don't get it. They say they have a right to make this decision - do they mean a legal or ethical right that supersedes your bylaws, or do they mean a right under the bylaws? If the latter, then, obviously, such a right can be taken away by changing the bylaws. It does not appear relevant to me that the chair of the committee owned a lift.

I guess my general question is if by whatever reason - two by-laws conflict with each other in that in this case one by-law says cant rent slips ( and therefore the lifts on them) and the other implies that they can - which one prevails - the older by-law which is more established or the newer one because it is more recent? Does Roberts Rules have any criteria which by-law prevails when two conflict with each other?

Test

This has been a very complex issue and as by-law chair, I need to lead the way to fix it. As a marina, members have slips. It is clearly stated in a very established and old by-law - "Members cannot rent their boat slip... (attached by-laws - Article 4, Section 7, first paragraph, last sentence). This was an original by-law and has been around for multiple decades.

10-15 years ago some members bought boat lifts based on this by-law that I think was created after the fact of original lifts placed:

 Section 11 – Lift owners a) Lift owners cannot turn in their slip for refund unless they remove all or part of the lift so as to render it practical for use by others. b) In the event that the member wishing to relinquish his slip, and who owns and has installed a mechanical lift on said slip, shall be required to remove all or parts of the lift so as to render it practical for use by others. Alternatively, the lift owner may make private arrangements so as to allow for use of his lift. This arrangement, including all financial, liability, or any other ramifications will be between the private parties and will not involve the club, except perhaps to accommodate such arrangement by making any necessary slip assignment changes..."

We have associates in line to become members and they get any vacant slips not used by  members in any given year and there is a seniority list for this.

The challenge is that members with lifts are renting to some of these associates (based on by-law above) who are down the seniority list and bypassing other associates who deserve available lifts. We cannot get the 2/3s vote to provide guidance (suggested by-law addition) about  about getting lift owners to rent their slips according to associate seniority list as lift owners are saying they have the right to decide who rents their lift as long as a member or associate. I have to do more research but I think the by-law chair who championed this may have been a lift owner if that means anything.

As we still try to place more specifics in place by getting 2/3 vote on more guidance, I am still trying to determine the default. Does the established and older by-law of no slips can be rented (and therefore neither can the lift on it) or the newer by-law that implies lift owners can rent to whoever is  in the club  be the default until resolved?

BYLAWSFINALedit2-10-2021-2020CMBC BYLAWS.pdf