two organizations with conflicting bylaws

[Natalie]

We have two organizations with conflicting bylaws.

Group A is an established, long-standing organization with a charter and bylaws. It spawned Group B and mentions Group B in the charter and bylaws of Group A. Group A grants the Chair of Group B a special membership which gives the chair the right of voice and vote in the assembly. But also the bylaws of Group A define the membership of Group B, even though Group B has its own Bylaws which define its own membership. Groups A's bylaws also have an Article describing Group B, but doesn't describe the relationship between the two groups. The Article just states it exists.

Now Group B wishes to change their own membership criteria, and has voted to do so according to its own bylaws. The Chair of Group A is claiming that since the membership criteria of Group B are defined in the Bylaws of Group A, then Group B can't have bylaws that conflict.

This seems preposterous to me. There is no suggestion in any of these documents that one group is subordinate to the other. The membership of Group B is not a sub-set of the membership of Group A, as a committee would be.

Any organization could adopt language in their bylaws mentioning another organization, but that doesn't mean they have control over that organization.

What do you think?

[J. J.]

We have two organizations with conflicting bylaws.

Group A is an established, long-standing organization with a charter and bylaws. It spawned Group B and mentions Group B in the charter and bylaws of Group A. Group A grants the Chair of Group B a special membership which gives the chair the right of voice and vote in the assembly. But also the bylaws of Group A define the membership of Group B, even though Group B has its own Bylaws which define its own membership. Groups A's bylaws also have an Article describing Group B, but doesn't describe the relationship between the two groups. The Article just states it exists.

Now Group B wishes to change their own membership criteria, and has voted to do so according to its own bylaws. The Chair of Group A is claiming that since the membership criteria of Group B are defined in the Bylaws of Group A, then Group B can't have bylaws that conflict.

This seems preposterous to me. There is no suggestion in any of these documents that one group is subordinate to the other. The membership of Group B is not a sub-set of the membership of Group A, as a committee would be.

Any organization could adopt language in their bylaws mentioning another organization, but that doesn't mean they have control over that organization.

What do you think?

I think your question is too vague. In general Group B can set its own membership criteria. Group A might amend its bylaws to prohibit its membership from being in Group B.

[David A Foulkes]

Group A is an established, long-standing organization with a charter and bylaws. It spawned Group B and mentions Group B in the charter and bylaws of Group A. Group A grants the Chair of Group B a special membership which gives the chair the right of voice and vote in the assembly. But also the bylaws of Group A define the membership of Group B, even though Group B has its own Bylaws which define its own membership. Groups A's bylaws also have an Article describing Group B, but doesn't describe the relationship between the two groups. The Article just states it exists.

.....

There is no suggestion in any of these documents that one group is subordinate to the other.

Well, there's a hint of whiff of the thought of a suggestion there, sort-a kind-a, and it doesn't sound like A is subordinate to B, but.........

What do you think?

I think it would take a careful reading of both sets of bylaws to determine a reasonable answer, and of course this is not an invitation to post them here, in full or excerpt.

Is there really is no connection or interdependency between the two groups? If group A became defunct, would there be no impact whatsoever on group B, and vice versa? If not, it might be best to amend both bylaws and remove all references to each other, solidifying the fact that they are each two autonomous and independent organizations.

[Natalie]

If Group A were defunct, there would be no impact on Group B, and vice versa. Group A is a state-wide organization made up of delegates elected from semi-automonous local groups (they all have their own bylaws but have to fulfill certain governance requirements to be able to have their delegates seated). Group B is made up of the Chairs of these local groups, and serves in no official capacity to the state organization - it's role is mutual support of the local groups.

Group A has provided free meeting space for Group B at it's quarterly meeting as a courtesy, but otherwise gives no funding, staff support or anything.

I hope this serves as a less vague question: Given that Group A's bylaws mentions the existence and membership make-up of Group B, which bylaws takes precedence?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

This seems preposterous to me.

What do you think?

Natalie, get real!

You are asking questions about bylaws which NO ONE HAS READ.

And indeed it would take a person to sit down, take time, and read both documents, to see the interplay between the documents, where they overlap, where they coordinate, where they are independent, and where they are interdependent.

And you know that.

There won't be a canned answer in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR 10th ed.) for comparing two customized bylaws.

So the 700+ pages of RONR cannot be cited to "prove" whether or not the two customized procedures MATCH or DO NOT MATCH, OVERLAP or DO NOT OVERLAP, are INDEPENDENT or INTER-DEPENDENT.

***

Analogy:

In 2011, the publishers of the New American Bible have announced a new edition as of March 9, 2011.

There seems to be a discrepancy between its wording and the wording of the Jewish Torah.

Q. Can you tell me which book is dependent on which book, and which one is superior to the other book?

Get it?

Apples and oranges.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Analogy:

In 2011, the publishers of the New American Bible have announced a new edition as of March 9, 2011.

There seems to be a discrepancy between its wording and the wording of the Jewish Torah.

Q. Can you tell me which book is dependent on which book, and which one is superior to the other book?

Get it?

Apples and oranges.

I'm not sure what the analogy is, but I think we all know which one is the source and which is the translation (or the translation of a translation).

[Natalie]

Ok, you don't have to get exited. I get it. You don't have an answer without reading both documents.

I will end this now.

[David A Foulkes]

Ok, you don't have to get exited. I get it. You don't have an answer without reading both documents.

I will end this now.

Natalie - don't take it to heart. He gets excited easily. Yes, it would be hard to answer any questions without reading both documents, since there is much in there that RONR will defer to. But any additional questions are welcome, and if we can help, we will.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I'm not sure what the analogy is, but I think we all know which one is the source and which is the translation (or the translation of a translation).

Oh, I see the analogy is missed.

I thought readers would know that virtually all Bibles were translations from the Greek or from the Vulgate, and NOT from the Hebrew.

When you say the word "Bible", you imply the source was Greek, and therefore NOT Hebrew.

Natalie was asking which bylaws were more authentic, or more applicable, than the other.

That question has no answer, since until you consider the sources of both, and what they say, there is nothing else to say other than "it depends." -- Read both, and compare, and only THEN, make a judgement.

That's what happens when you rip a headline from a newspaper and try to use it as a contemporary analogy.

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm not sure what the analogy is, but I think we all know which one is the source and which is the translation (or the translation of a translation).

Is that anything like a Millennium Edition?

[hmtcastle]

When you say the word "Bible", you imply the source was Greek, and therefore NOT Hebrew.

A "fact" the writers of the Hebrew Bible must have overlooked.

[David A Foulkes]

Gee, we usually don't go this far off-topic for at least a few more posts.

[Josh Martin]

Oh, I see the analogy is missed.

I thought readers would know that virtually all Bibles were translations from the Greek or from the Vulgate, and NOT from the Hebrew.

When you say the word "Bible", you imply the source was Greek, and therefore NOT Hebrew.

Well, Mr. Gerber put "translation of a translation" in parentheses, so I'm not sure why you feel he needs the history lesson. You are correct that most bibles are translated from the Latin Vulgate or the Greek Septuagint, but those texts were, in turn, translated from Hebrew.