Guest J. Wilner Posted December 16, 2011 at 01:25 AM Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 at 01:25 AM A fine point on which I can't find guidance. I am part of a body which includes a number of ex officio members. The by-laws specify that the ex officio members are without vote but say nothing as to whether they can make motions. Clarity on that point is not vital but would help in conducting business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 16, 2011 at 01:33 AM Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 at 01:33 AM A fine point on which I can't find guidance. I am part of a body which includes a number of ex officio members. The by-laws specify that the ex officio members are without vote but say nothing as to whether they can make motions. Clarity on that point is not vital but would help in conducting business.In RONR, the word "member", whether ex-officio or not, means someone with full rights--to attend meetings, to make and second motions, to speak in debate, and to vote.If your bylaws deny one of these basic rights of membership to a class of members, but are silent with respect to other rights, then the general rules of interpretation would suggest that any rights not explicitly denied are retained by the members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted December 16, 2011 at 01:34 AM Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 at 01:34 AM There seems to be two major schools of thought on the subject. First, is that a member retains all the rights of membership minus whatever has been removed. The other school is that since the bylaws are creating a separate class of membership than what RONR recognizes it will be up to the organization thorough its bylaws to determine what rights these members have. Both schools can be reasonably argued in my opinion. So you all can take your pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted December 16, 2011 at 01:44 AM Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 at 01:44 AM So you all can take your pick.The two are not mutually exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 16, 2011 at 01:49 AM Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 at 01:49 AM There seems to be two major schools of thought on the subject. First, is that a member retains all the rights of membership minus whatever has been removed. The other school is that since the bylaws are creating a separate class of membership than what RONR recognizes it will be up to the organization thorough its bylaws to determine what rights these members have. Both schools can be reasonably argued in my opinion. So you all can take your pick. In this case, the bylaws seem only to have identified this group of members by the one right they lack. While I would not disagree with the bolded portion above, in this case the organization has removed one right but not, by name, granted any. Nevertheless, I think it would be a mistake to conclude that these members listed as being "without vote" also have no rights to move, second, debate, or even attend, simply because the bylaws are silent. Indeed, if they cannot move, second, debate or vote, what is the point of attending at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted December 16, 2011 at 01:51 AM Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 at 01:51 AM The two are not mutually exclusive.They aren't? It seems that it would be either one or the other though I am sure that a hybrid 3rd (and maybe more) school exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted December 16, 2011 at 01:58 AM Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 at 01:58 AM They aren't? It seems that it would be either one or the other . . .As you described it, one school is that all other rights are retained and the other school is that it's up to the organization. Clearly the organization can (and probably should) determine that all other rights are retained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 16, 2011 at 03:48 AM Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 at 03:48 AM There seems to be two major schools of thought on the subject. First, is that a member retains all the rights of membership minus whatever has been removed. The other school is that since the bylaws are creating a separate class of membership than what RONR recognizes it will be up to the organization thorough its bylaws to determine what rights these members have. Both schools can be reasonably argued in my opinion. So you all can take your pick. Well, I'm not sure that these are so much competing schools of thought as a recognition that the answer depends on how the society defines the position in its Bylaws (or at least, that's my "school of thought" on this subject). The first "school of thought" is a particular application of Principle of Interpretation #4, and the second is a particular application of Principle of Interpretation #8. Which is applicable will depend on how the position is defined in the Bylaws.In any event, this is ultimately an issue of Bylaws interpretation which will need to be determined by the society. The Principles of Interpretation in RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 (especially #4 and #8) may be of assistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 16, 2011 at 04:29 AM Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 at 04:29 AM A lot of it will depend on the exact wording of the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.