Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Going against company bylaws


Guest will

Recommended Posts

is there any reason that would allow the board to against the bylaws

None that comes to mind. Why not ask the board why it thinks it can do what it plans on doing (or, worse, has done)?

I suppose if the clubhouse was burning and the bylaws prohibited the use of water, the board might want to make an exception. But perhaps you could be more specific?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the bylaws are in conflict with applicable law or statute? Obviously the bylaws should be amended to correct that, but would it be appropriate for the board to "violate" the bylaws in order not to break the law?

Now that's the kind of outside-the-box thinking we've come to expect.

Perhaps willr, who has wisely become a member of this august forum, will let us know if that's the sort of thing he has in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostDavid A Foulkes, on 15 June 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

What if the bylaws are in conflict with applicable law or statute? Obviously the bylaws should be amended to correct that, but would it be appropriate for the board to "violate" the bylaws in order not to break the law?

Now that's the kind of outside-the-box thinking we've come to expect....

The easy answer would be to make the usual point about how historically, organizations such as civil-rights groups would decide to do things in violation of unjust laws. (I'm assuming that it would be easily possible for such violations to be encoded in the bylaws, granting that the usual discussions are about specific main-motion actions.) But David Foulkes doesn't much like the easy answer, except maybe when he's the only one trying to answer the question.

RONR (Ooo, remember that?) talks about statutes with procedural effect. So let's posit a bank-robbers' organization (yes, usually affiliated with orchid fanciers, but that's not germane now. I hope) whose bylaws mandate a bank robbery on the second Tuesday of odd-numbered months (because, obviously, there's a regular business meeting on the second Tuesday of even-numbered months; please don't quibble) in a jurisdiction with a statute that says, no bank robberies without a 2/3 vote. Now okay, we got Mr. Foulkes' bank robbers, and when Mr. Foulkes is involved, you bloody well know the pistoleros are waving around. Trouble is, security is somethin fierce in town lately, and the robbers (okay, and orchid fanciers) can't rustle (heh) up a 2/3 vote, though the club's bank balance (ironic, there) is shrinking horrifically.

Wups, my time's up: somebody else type now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, how I miss having you around Nancy, as well as your point. Tell me (as I always have difficulty with the difference) is it slanderous or libelous to make reference to me as a bank robber?

Of course I won't try to answer your question, as it's against the website's rules to be caught practicing law. But I see your point that maybe I didn't make one.

I got a little too deep in mud by trying to harmonize what RONR says, if I'm misquoting it correctly, about parliamentary practice's not having to comply with applicable procedural statutes. (See p. 15, and then flip about for the page you need.) So let's simplify, and just go with a place whose law says no bank robbing allowed on Tuesdays. Same bylaws as above, rob a bank on a Tuesday. There, a conflict: Can the board, assuming it has no integrity (a requirement for holding office), justify not robbing banks?

(O Great Steaming Cobnuts, whyever did I throw in the Tuesdays part?)

Next time I will mention the Zombies Freedom League, but that one gets tired quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, with regard to an organized society that "requires certain rules to establish its basic structure and manner of operation", the "only limitations upon the rules that such a body can thus adopt might arise from....national, state, or local law affecting the particular type of organization." (RONR 11th ed., p. 10 ll. 9-10 & 25-30) It thus seems that any bylaws adopted that conflict with applicable law would be null and void, therefore no bank robberies on Tuesday.

And having spent a week in Tulsa one day, I'm pretty sure they would refer to our esteemed PA as "Bub's Rules of Ohduh."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the bylaws are in conflict with applicable law or statute? Obviously the bylaws should be amended to correct that, but would it be appropriate for the board to "violate" the bylaws in order not to break the law?

I think it that case it would be more accurate to say that the bylaws had been superseded, rather than violated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...