Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'associate member'.
Found 2 results
Okay, so if an organization has two types of members (A and B ), and Member type B is permitted to vote on everything except bylaws and matters dealing with finances, does that mean that Member B should be considered "out of order" if he/she tries to make and/or debate motions that deal with those particular topics? (Hmmm. I have such a sense of deja vu...) Louise
Hello, all. According to RONR, "member" is defined as"a person having the right to full participation in its proceedings - that is, as explained in 3 and 4, the right to make motions, to speak in debate on them, and to vote." (p. 3 l. 8-12) Does this mean that only full members with all those rights should be called "members"? Is it too confusing to have two classes of members by that name ("member"), even if they have distinctive titles (ABC and XYZ, say), each of which has its own set of rights and responsibilities outlined in the bylaws? We are proposing the wording in our bylaws draft, "There are two types of members in the [organization], namely [ABC] and [XYZ]." Would it be better to word it as "There are two types of members in the [organization], namely [ABC] (Members) and [XYZ] (Associate Members)" just to ensure there is no confusion? Or am I way overthinking this? Louise