Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Recommended Posts

A friend of mine has a vision of creating a new organzation. He called a meeting to gauge interest, and believes that enough exists. As it happens, there is a need both for somewhat extensive bylaws (and these will be hotly debated), and near-immediate action. Furthermore, he is nervous about holding funds for the prospective organization, let alone using them for definite action.

I've read through the sections on mass meetings & organizing a society, as well as the general provisions regarding the bylaws. I'm going to be walking through the detailed explanation of the sections again, as I've not needed to avail myself of that in over a decade.

His idea was to enact "temporary bylaws" in the upcoming meeting (10 days) and temporary officers so that bank accounts & etc could be established & that the permanent bylaws be adopted at the next meeting.

I double checked, and of course there is no reference to "temporary bylaws". Moreover, RRO XI is explicit that it takes at least two meetings to organize a society, and that until the society is formally organized, no action can be taken on its behalf.

The notice of the meeting, which he sent out three days ago, includes the following:

"The Organizational Meeting of X has been set for Monday, July 16 at 6:30 p.m. at Y address. We will send out the agenda prior to that meeting, but the main purposes are to put in place what we need to start to operate our organization, and there will be announcement on a special guest who will speak on Z."

It would appear to me that the situation could be treated as if the initial meeting of the organization has already taken place. Thoughts?

My original idea was to use the skelton bylaws from RRO, and strip them down to the bare minimum, with a provision that the entire thing be up for revision at the next meeting by majority vote of those paid, present, and voting, and adopt them at the next meeting. Does this seem advisable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read through the sections on mass meetings & organizing a society, as well as the general provisions regarding the bylaws. I'm going to be walking through the detailed explanation of the sections again, as I've not needed to avail myself of that in over a decade.

His idea was to enact "temporary bylaws" in the upcoming meeting (10 days) and temporary officers so that bank accounts & etc could be established & that the permanent bylaws be adopted at the next meeting.

I double checked, and of course there is no reference to "temporary bylaws". Moreover, RRO XI is explicit that it takes at least two meetings to organize a society, and that until the society is formally organized, no action can be taken on its behalf.

Page 553 would detail a temporary society, and with at least some rules being adopted.

The notice of the meeting, which he sent out three days ago, includes the following:

"The Organizational Meeting of X has been set for Monday, July 16 at 6:30 p.m. at Y address. We will send out the agenda prior to that meeting, but the main purposes are to put in place what we need to start to operate our organization, and there will be announcement on a special guest who will speak on Z."

It would appear to me that the situation could be treated as if the initial meeting of the organization has already taken place. Thoughts?

My original idea was to use the skelton bylaws from RRO, and strip them down to the bare minimum, with a provision that the entire thing be up for revision at the next meeting by majority vote of those paid, present, and voting, and adopt them at the next meeting. Does this seem advisable?

I would not see anything particularly wrong in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nancy N.
Page 553 would detail a temporary society, and with at least some rules being adopted.

I would not see anything particularly wrong in this.

(Sorry, J.J., did not see this before I posted. -- But still.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nancy N.

I think I agree with JJ, particularly about p. 553

[snipping] As it happens, there is a need both for somewhat extensive bylaws (and these will be hotly debated),

Notwithstanding the degree of heat, for how much time? Enough as is envisioned below?

and near-immediate action.

This might not be germane, as far as we commentators on the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum are concerned, but how near-immediate is it? I presume not before July 16. Enough time to allow another meeting? Apparently maybe not.

Furthermore, he is nervous about holding funds for the prospective organization, let alone using them for definite action.

Why be nervous? So far, isn't he only spending his own money? If not, he would be holding money or spending it on whatever those people who gave it to him endorsed, no?

His idea was to enact "temporary bylaws"; in the upcoming meeting (10 days) and temporary officers so that bank accounts [etc] could be established [ and]; that the permanent bylaws be adopted at the next meeting.

It occurs to me that there is no prohibition in RONR, or anything else that I can think of, that would prohibit a set of bylaws from including a provision like "These bylaws will expire in their entirety on August 17, 2012." And I would think it would also be acceptable to say that if it were followed by "unless superseded before then." I'll say I think that, since you expect to be adopting fuller, if hotly debated, bylaws before that date, that addition would be for safety's sake, and is probably illogical and superfluous. Maybe a violation of the Patriot Act. -- but isn't everything?

..., RRO XI

Please nobody else ever employ this disgusting abomination. (And Rules Nerd, since you are a member here, I would welcome your fixing it. With a note at the bottom to clarify the error. Unless you think "XI" is shorter and clearer than "11." Pfui.)

It would appear to me that the situation could be treated as if the initial meeting of the organization has already taken place. Thoughts?

Ehh. Maybe. I'll go with JJ here. But where did you get this noxious locution "Thoughts?" Does some smug cable TV potentate say it customarily?

(N.B. Maybe this venom not all on Mr. or Ms. Nerd. I might be having a bad day. Or long night.)

My original idea was to use the skeleton bylaws from RRO, and strip them down to the bare minimum, with a provision that the entire thing be up for revision at the next meeting by majority vote of those paid, present, and voting, and adopt them at the next meeting. Does this seem advisable?

You might want to send your proposed provisional bylaws out to the mailing list, before the meeting on the 16th, so that people could look them over. MIght save time on the 16th. Or the reverse, if you figure the better strategy is to blindside and bulldoze them. So, do you think the "hotly debated" real bylaws, would, despite hot debate, be adopted quickly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please nobody else ever employ this disgusting abomination. (And Rules Nerd, since you are a member here, I would welcome your fixing it. With a note at the bottom to clarify the error. Unless you think "XI" is shorter and clearer than "11." Pfui.)

But where did you get this noxious locution "Thoughts?" Does some smug cable TV potentate say it customarily?

I'm new here, but isn't this emotion a little excessive for the pet peeves? I think the meaning and intention were clear in both cases.

(Maybe this venom not all on Mr. or Ms. Nerd. I might be having a bad day. Or long night.)

Okay, I hope so. It's not just the "culture" here to vehemently denounce minor stylistic differences, I hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nancy N.

I'm new here, but isn't this emotion a little excessive for the pet peeves? I think the meaning and intention were clear in both cases.

Some of us here do get hot about corruption of the language. I allowed myslef the latitude because I restricted my venom to the error, not to the errer. (Boy I hope that's a word, because if it is, how felicitously phrased. And thanks to new member Catalina for providing the opportunity to take the risk.)

Okay, I hope so. It's not just the ";culture"; here to vehemently denounce minor stylistic differences, I hope.

In general, I have to agree with welcome new member catalina on this. I hope she enjoys a long and pleasant time on the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum. But on these pet peeves I stand with reluctant and respectful insistence, adamant. (Or maybe I stand adamantly with insistence. Now I'm not sure which. Catalina, help me out here, you're probably good with this.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not simply create a simple version of the By-laws (the bare essentials - the name of the organization, how it will deal with membership - can anyone join or will there be a vetting process, a description of the Board of Directors, how often there will be meetings of the membership and the Board, etc.) Then your friend as "President" can simply set up the paperwork (perhaps with a couple of other people as a Board.) Once the meeting occurs, the By-laws can be amended/added to as necessary and a full Board be elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Edgar

. . . the bare essentials . . . a description of the Board of Directors . . .

The bare essentials and already there's a board?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bare essentials and already there's a board?

Yes - essentially the "founding member(s)" of the organization. At the first meeting, a 'real' Board can be elected. But you need someone (or a couple people) to get the ball rolling and what else would you call them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, welcome, Cat. Sorry you caught (some of) us on a bad day.

While many of us (and I include myself) get a little snarky from time to time, and nearly all of us (myself included) have one or more grammar peeves that set us off, I think you'll find that this is, on the whole, as respectful a group of people as you'd ever want to meet and who, even when critical, are critical of the idea, not the speaker. We adhere for the most part to the rules of decorum that one might expect of us in a meeting of a deliberative assembly.

In short, tis a whole hell of a lot better than groups you and I have been members of in times past, if you know what I mean. :P

Welcome aboard, my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While many of us (and I include myself) get a little snarky from time to time, and nearly all of us (myself included) have one or more grammar peeves that set us off, I think you'll find that this is, on the whole, as respectful a group of people as you'd ever want to meet and who, even when critical, are critical of the idea, not the speaker. We adhere for the most part to the rules of decorum that one might expect of us in a meeting of a deliberative assembly.

In short, tis a whole hell of a lot better than groups you and I have been members of in times past, if you know what I mean. :P

Hey, Gary. Thanks for the welcome. You understood exactly why I asked the question. I have a sizable supply of my own pet peeves but was a little wary of the dynamic based on past experience. (You know, if you see some blood in the water, you want to know if you've jumped into a shark tank.) I'm glad to hear it's impassioned, but essentially respectful, discourse. I wish never to repeat certain types of online experiences we had the misfortune to endure.

-Cat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was Nancy who told us how she was puzzled by what she saw on brown paper packages until she realized it was just “30” in Italian.

For laughs like that, I'll put up with most anything she wants to say. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp, I guess I found out which part of the internet this is. And, for clarification purposes, I'm male. So, if I stick around for a bit, I can figure out how to make all of my topics "hot" by learning people's pet peeves?

As for me, my peeve is people referencing a versioned document without referencing the version...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the original subject...

The founder's discomfort stems primarily from his high ethical standards, not from any particular requirement in law (parliamentary or otherwise).

The provisions of the bylaws which I expect to be contested will center around adding members & political endorsements (it is a political society). Also, we have an election coming at the end of the month, and the focus of the membership needs to be on that, not hammering out the details of a new organization.

Also, I believe that it is the intention of the founder to include the proposed bylaws in a email to the interested parties before the meeting. I certainly will advise that.

As to the substantive responses...

Putting a provision in the bylaws for automatic expiration does not make their amendment easier--it merely forces the society to dissolve should no amendment be approved.

As for my two specific queries, it appears that the idea of lowering the bar for amending bylaws for a specific purpose does not pose any particular problem. It also appears that there is no objection to dispensing with the formality of the first organizational meeting (RRO 11 p554), given the nature of the call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Edgar

Yes - essentially the "founding member(s)" of the organization. At the first meeting, a 'real' Board can be elected. But you need someone (or a couple people) to get the ball rolling and what else would you call them?

I guess I'd call them the president and the secretary since those are the two essential officers.

Putting all the founding members on the board (whether it's a real board or not) seems a tad excessive. Though I suppose it does no harm (until you have to tell some of them -- most of them? -- that they won't be on the real board).

And it may be that this particular organization won't need a board (real or otherwise) at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm new here, but isn't this emotion a little excessive for the pet peeves? I think the meaning and intention were clear in both cases.

Okay, I hope so. It's not just the "culture" here to vehemently denounce minor stylistic differences, I hope.

If you stick around long enough, and I hope you do, you'll learn to Love Nancy (from a safe distance).

If "Love" doesn't work, you can always strike it and insert "ignore." ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...