Making bylaws

[Guest DavidC]

I'm helping rewrite the bylaws for an organization, and I'm trying to make a change, but I'm not sure why RONR does something the way it does.

We'd like to keep members who have not paid dues on the rolls, but not let them vote. (Why? Because before, we didn't let them be members until the paid their dues, which resulted in yo-yoing membership each year as ex-members scrabble to rejoin in time for the annual meeting and election. It was a mess.)

RONR says this can't be done without the bylaws allowing it, which is fine, as this is going in the bylaws. However, is there some reason this would be a _bad_ idea? Is there some side effect of this I'm not seeing?

I _think_ the rule 'it must be in the bylaws' is just because the right to vote is a fundamental right the assemble cannot remove without bylaw permission, but I can't shake the idea there's some reason it shouldn't be done?

Also, what would be the correct way of barring them from voting? Just saying they do not have the right to vote? (And what exactly would that mean? They can still make motions? Nominate people? Raise points of order? I don't actually care, it's unlikely they'd attend a meeting at all, I'm just wondering.)

And I was tying to define members who are current on their dues as 'members in good standing', but I have the feeling that this is not the correct term. Is there a recommended term, like 'active' or 'current'?

[Shmuel Gerber]

I'm helping rewrite the bylaws for an organization, and I'm trying to make a change, but I'm not sure why RONR does something the way it does.

We'd like to keep members who have not paid dues on the rolls, but not let them vote. (Why? Because before, we didn't let them be members until the paid their dues, which resulted in yo-yoing membership each year as ex-members scrabble to rejoin in time for the annual meeting and election. It was a mess.)

RONR says this can't be done without the bylaws allowing it, which is fine, as this is going in the bylaws. However, is there some reason this would be a _bad_ idea? Is there some side effect of this I'm not seeing?

I _think_ the rule 'it must be in the bylaws' is just because the right to vote is a fundamental right the assemble cannot remove without bylaw permission, but I can't shake the idea there's some reason it shouldn't be done?

Also, what would be the correct way of barring them from voting? Just saying they do not have the right to vote? (And what exactly would that mean? They can still make motions? Nominate people? Raise points of order? I don't actually care, it's unlikely they'd attend a meeting at all, I'm just wondering.)

And I was tying to define members who are current on their dues as 'members in good standing', but I have the feeling that this is not the correct term. Is there a recommended term, like 'active' or 'current'?

I'm sorry, but I find it exceptionally unclear what exactly you are trying to accomplish, especially since you say you don't actually care what would be accomplished.

[Guest 4zt6e1]

I am trying to make people pay their dues to vote, and yet not fall off the member rolls because they have not paid their dues yet.

I am just trying to trying to see if there's some side effect of this that is not obvious. (And also what the correct term would be. I'm leaning towards 'active' and 'inactive'?)

One side effect that I've already accounted for: Only paid-up members count towards quorum and petition requirements.

Incidentally, there appears to be something _seriously_ wrong with the captcha. Having to do it twice...whatever. Having to do it a dozen times...uh, no, it's broken.

[Tim Wynn]

I'm helping rewrite the bylaws for an organization, and I'm trying to make a change, but I'm not sure why RONR does something the way it does.

We'd like to keep members who have not paid dues on the rolls, but not let them vote. (Why? Because before, we didn't let them be members until the paid their dues, which resulted in yo-yoing membership each year as ex-members scrabble to rejoin in time for the annual meeting and election. It was a mess.)

RONR says this can't be done without the bylaws allowing it, which is fine, as this is going in the bylaws. However, is there some reason this would be a _bad_ idea? Is there some side effect of this I'm not seeing?

I _think_ the rule 'it must be in the bylaws' is just because the right to vote is a fundamental right the assemble cannot remove without bylaw permission, but I can't shake the idea there's some reason it shouldn't be done?

Also, what would be the correct way of barring them from voting? Just saying they do not have the right to vote? (And what exactly would that mean? They can still make motions? Nominate people? Raise points of order? I don't actually care, it's unlikely they'd attend a meeting at all, I'm just wondering.)

And I was tying to define members who are current on their dues as 'members in good standing', but I have the feeling that this is not the correct term. Is there a recommended term, like 'active' or 'current'?

Won't you have the same situation as election time approaches, with members scrabbling to pay their memberships? As a funny twist, I'm actually playing Scrabble, right now.

See the footnote on page 6 of RONR (11th ed.).

[Tim Wynn]

(And also what the correct term would be. I'm leaning towards 'active' and 'inactive'?)

You seem to be mixing the concept of a member with a right suspended and a separate category of membership.

Incidentally, there appears to be something _seriously_ wrong with the captcha. Having to do it twice...whatever. Having to do it a dozen times...uh, no, it's broken.

The fix is to become a member.

[Guest Edgar]

The fix is to become a member.

That's like "fixing" a car by driving a different car.

BmX45t

[Tim Wynn]

That's like "fixing" a car by driving a different car.

BmX45t

No, it's like fixing delays at the toll both by getting E-ZPass.

[Rev Ed]

The organization could pass a By-law, or amend an existing one, to read something like this: "Any members whose dues are in arrears by more than 30 days will lose his or her right to vote at meetings of the general membership until such time as his or her membership dues are brought up to date." I know of a couple organizations that have this clause.

Of course, depending on when the dues are normally paid and the Annual Meeting is held might be part of the problem. For example, if the dues are payable in June and the Annual Meeting is in July, you might get a lot of people who have outstanding dues. However. if dues are payable three months (or more) before the Annual Meeting, then it is less likely to be an issue.

[Gary Novosielski]

The organization could pass a By-law, or amend an existing one, to read something like this: "Any members whose dues are in arrears by more than 30 days will lose his or her right to vote at meetings of the general membership until such time as his or her membership dues are brought up to date." I know of a couple organizations that have this clause.

So do I. And some with even worse grammar. <grinduck>

[Guest DavidC]

(Apparently you have to go to the 'More Reply Options' to put in your name or it just makes up one. Sorry, I had assumed that was in a cookie. Also, I'd make these individual replies, but then I'd have to fight the captcha even more.)

Won't you have the same situation as election time approaches, with members scrabbling to pay their memberships?

Yes. The real reason I'm trying to do that volunteering time can waive a large portion of the dues for each calendar year. So no one ever pays on time anyway.

I would much rather they remain members, and are treated as members in all respects, and make them pay dues before or at the annual meeting if they wish to vote in the board election. (By 'at' I mean 'a call for dues will be made before the meeting is called to order', not literally during the meeting.)

Plus, the fact is, the organization just basically collapsed, with the board hijacking the place and running it into the ground, and members have left in droves, partially because 'You're just a volunteer, not a member, and we don't have to listen to you. We can always find more volunteers' attitude(1). Not that they listened to members either. So part of it is symbolic....we're setting up a system where you join, and you're expected to stay a member for several years. (Even if you don't pay and thus can't vote.)

1) Turns out...eventually, no, they could not always find more volunteers. So we've promised to come back...if they resign.

You seem to be mixing the concept of a member with a right suspended and a separate category of membership.

Yes, I am, because I need a way to refer to 'general members who don't have their voting rights suspended' throughout the rest of the bylaws without repeating that over and over. (It effects quorum and petition requirements, and is a requirement for being on the board, and probably other places I haven't thought of.) So I wanted to know if there a correct term for that?

The organization could pass a By-law, or amend an existing one, to read something like this: "Any members whose dues are in arrears by more than 30 days will lose his or her right to vote at meetings of the general membership until such time as his or her membership dues are brought up to date." I know of a couple organizations that have this clause.

Yeah, that's basically what I wanted to add, I was just running a sanity check here because RONR requires that specifically in the bylaws, and I couldn't tell if the RONR is saying 'You can't do this unless bylaws allow it.' because it's a _bad idea_, or some other reason.

Usually, when something is a bad idea, the RONR explain why that is, like why when, off the top of my head, it explains why nomination ballots shouldn't be the election ballots, or why cumulative voting needs bylaw permission. But in this specific case, it didn't bother explain. (Sorry, my copy of RONR is elsewhere...when the heck are we getting the ebook of that?)

But as no one has come up with any 'That is a very bad idea because...' reasoning, and it apparently works for the places you're talking about, I guess I will go ahead with it.

[Guest Edgar]

I was just running a sanity check here . . .

In that case you've definitely come to the wrong place.

[Gary c Tesser]

To answer one of the original questions: it occurs to me that what we've been overlooking is that, pretty much by definition, it takes a fundamental-level rule -- which is bylaws -- to deprive a member of a fundamental right of membership.