Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'associate member'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • RONR Message Board – Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised
    • General Discussion
    • Advanced Discussion
    • The Robert’s Rules Website
  • About the Message Board
    • Questions or Comments about the Message Board

Categories

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location:


Interests

Found 2 results

  1. 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
  2. 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
×
×
  • Create New...