Guest Guest Posted December 13, 2011 at 03:17 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 at 03:17 PM If our bylaws have nothing about proxy voting, is it allowed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 13, 2011 at 03:24 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 at 03:24 PM No. (RONR, p. 428)Unless your applicable state law (if any) says otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted December 13, 2011 at 06:28 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 at 06:28 PM If our bylaws have nothing about proxy voting, is it allowed?RONR prohibits it, unless expressly authorized in the bylaws or higher governing document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted December 13, 2011 at 06:31 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 at 06:31 PM No. (RONR, p. 428)Unless your applicable state law (if any) says otherwise.It may also be helpful for the original poster to know that RONR (11th ed.) says that if such a procedural rule allows proxy voting to be prohibited by a provision of the bylaws, the adoption of RONR as parliamentary authority through prescription in the bylaws should be seen as sufficient to accomplish such a prohibition. That's on p. 429, ll. 10-14. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 13, 2011 at 07:54 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 at 07:54 PM Yeah... but it says "should be seen as sufficient..."When the progenitor of this phrase first showed up, in the 9th edition, it read "is treated as sufficient...", a much stronger assertion. The 10th ed. went to "should be..." leading me to conjecture that the A-Team was a tad dubious that they could get away with the "strong" statement.There may be legal ramifications to all this that I know not of. If the law says "You must use proxies unless your bylaws say 'No' ", I'd recommend that the association put the "No" in their bylaws to actively prohibit use, and not depend on "should be seen" in RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted December 13, 2011 at 09:23 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 at 09:23 PM Yeah... but it says "should be seen as sufficient..."When the progenitor of this phrase first showed up, in the 9th edition, it read "is treated as sufficient...", a much stronger assertion. The 10th ed. went to "should be..." leading me to conjecture that the A-Team was a tad dubious that they could get away with the "strong" statement.There may be legal ramifications to all this that I know not of. If the law says "You must use proxies unless your bylaws say 'No' ", I'd recommend that the association put the "No" in their bylaws to actively prohibit use, and not depend on "should be seen" in RONR.That is certainly a valid point and good advice. However, it is the organization that decides the meaning of its own rules (until it is dragged into court, anyway), and that about how to perceive the meaning of the prohibition is contained in a document that the organization adopted in its bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 13, 2011 at 10:10 PM Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 at 10:10 PM Yeah... but it says "should be seen as sufficient..."When the progenitor of this phrase first showed up, in the 9th edition, it read "is treated as sufficient...", a much stronger assertion. The 10th ed. went to "should be..." leading me to conjecture that the A-Team was a tad dubious that they could get away with the "strong" statement.There may be legal ramifications to all this that I know not of. If the law says "You must use proxies unless your bylaws say 'No' ", I'd recommend that the association put the "No" in their bylaws to actively prohibit use, and not depend on "should be seen" in RONR.That is certainly a valid point and good advice. However, it is the organization that decides the meaning of its own rules (until it is dragged into court, anyway), and that about how to perceive the meaning of the prohibition is contained in a document that the organization adopted in its bylaws.As a matter of parliamentary law, it is sufficient, and upon judicial construction of an applicable statute, it should be treated as sufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 14, 2011 at 01:31 AM Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 at 01:31 AM Serious question: who decides the "should" related to the "judicial construction"?Maybe I had best sign up for law school - what does the University of Phoenix have to offer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted December 14, 2011 at 01:37 AM Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 at 01:37 AM what does the University of Phoenix have to offer?The University of Phoenix Stadium?Not bad for a school which has no intercollegiate athletics program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 14, 2011 at 12:03 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 at 12:03 PM Serious question: who decides the "should" related to the "judicial construction"?The courts are the final arbiters of what will or will not satisfy specific statutory requirements.in individual cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 14, 2011 at 02:05 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 at 02:05 PM And can I presume that an explicit "No proxies" in the bylaws is no more guaranteed to "work" than the adoption of RONR (without any further bylaw mention of proxies)?It depends on specific facts, texts, and precedents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 14, 2011 at 03:12 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 at 03:12 PM And can I presume that an explicit "No proxies" in the bylaws is no more guaranteed to "work" than the adoption of RONR (without any further bylaw mention of proxies)?I don't think it wise to guarantee anything in this connection, but I do think that an explicit "No proxies" in the bylaws is probably the better bet.It depends on specific facts, texts, and precedents?Yes, I think this is essentially a correct statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.