Guest Sue R Posted July 20, 2012 at 05:18 AM Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 at 05:18 AM A question came up about who is eligible to be on a committee. Our bylaws say"ARTICLE VI, COMMITTEES: Section 1. Committees of the Board: The Board of Directors by majority vote may designate one or more committees, which shall consist of one or more Directors, as necessary to conduct the business of the District. Section 2. Chairman. The committee chair shall be appointed by the Board Chairman. " Section 1 was worded this way to allow one director to be appointed as a 'committee' primarily when gathering quotes, etc. for board projects. Now the newer Directors want to appoint non-board members to a new committee being set up to handle the details of drawing plans for a building addition. We longerserving Directors read Section 1 to mean the committees are made up of one or more directors only. The Bylaws also state the Board adopted roberts Rules of Order. There is nothing specific in our state statutes covering this. Thank you for your comments and advise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted July 20, 2012 at 06:12 AM Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 at 06:12 AM I'm afraid that this, the Robert's Rules Website Forum (RONR MB), is particularly not the venue for getting bylaws interpreted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted July 20, 2012 at 11:45 AM Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 at 11:45 AM I'm not sure this calls for interpretation, so much as reference to a dictionary. Gary, do you think 'consists of' is ambiguous in any way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 20, 2012 at 12:06 PM Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 at 12:06 PM Now the newer Directors want to appoint non-board members to a new committee . . . Ask them what part about "shall consist of one or more Directors" they don't understand. And note that, in this context, "shall" means "must". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted July 20, 2012 at 04:07 PM Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 at 04:07 PM I'm not sure this calls for interpretation, so much as reference to a dictionary. Gary, do you think 'consists of' is ambiguous in any way?Generally no, except that when I try to remember what "comprise" means, I get it backwards half the time. But even if "consists of" has only one meaning, which I would lean towards even if I didn't have RONR, 11th Ed, p. 256 bottom to back me up, it seems to me that once we open the question of whether "'consists of' is ambiguous in any way" (I'm not gonna rearrange the internal quotation marks), even if the answer is no, we have edged into interpreting the bylaws, since the bylaws is where we find "consists of" in this thread.Also I've been thinking for a couple of weeks of how to indicate to posters on this, the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum, that they should take their bylaws questions elsewhere, one place in particular, without remotely hinting at it at all. David Foulkes had some ideas, but they got heavily oxidized ailerons, if you know what I mean. Probably you'd have come up with something exceedingly brilliant in seconds, as is typical; but I, in contrast, am a slow and ponderous thinker, of dour and lugubrious mien.Finally, if some of Guest Sue R's directors think that "directors" can mean "directors and non-directors," then that's for Sue R's organization to decide, notwithstanding Trina's, GcT's, Guest_Edgar's, and any other non-delusional persons' opinion on the matter.N.B. Reference to "non-delusional" limited to this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.