JayW Posted October 9, 2012 at 08:35 PM Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 at 08:35 PM We're having an issue in our club requiring the interpretation of the conditions for membership (revolving around the word "an", of all things!). I know that interpretation of the Bylaws is up to the club -- but how do we bring that issue to the floor? Can a member make a motion "that the statement '[blah blah blah]' in the Bylaws be interpreted to mean '[thus and such]'?" Or would it have to be done as a Point of Order, when the new members are announced? ("Point of Order: The application for John and Jane Doe was not presented to the Board because of an improper interpretation (by the Membership Chair) of the Bylaws. The statement '[blah blah blah]' is clearly meant to mean '[thus and such]', and not '[the other thing]'.") And once the decision was rendered, would that interpretation become part of the Standing Rules?(Another quick question, just to make sure -- if the Bylaws state a vote is passed by "75% of the members present and in good standing", that means that abstentions (from those in good standing) effectively count as "no" votes, rather than not counting at all, correct?)Thanks, as ever, for the insight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 9, 2012 at 08:46 PM Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 at 08:46 PM . . . if the Bylaws state a vote is passed by "75% of the members present and in good standing", that means that abstentions (from those in good standing) effectively count as "no" votes, rather than not counting at all, correct?)I'll pick the low-hanging fruit:Yes. If the voting requirement is based on the number of members present (rather than present and voting), then abstentions have the same effect as "no" votes (though you might want to avoid saying that they "count" as anything). See FAQ #6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayW Posted October 9, 2012 at 08:51 PM Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 at 08:51 PM Ah, FAQs, forgot about those! (I did check the Official Interpretations about abstentions, but it didn't apply here!) Thanks!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnR Posted October 9, 2012 at 08:52 PM Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 at 08:52 PM As for the higher bananas, a Point of Order is the right way to introduce a bylaws interpretation issue. The result does not become a standing rule, but a precedent that should be followed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayW Posted October 9, 2012 at 11:09 PM Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 at 11:09 PM Fantastic, thanks so much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louise Posted October 10, 2012 at 04:36 PM Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 at 04:36 PM As for the higher bananas, a Point of Order is the right way to introduce a bylaws interpretation issue. The result does not become a standing rule, but a precedent that should be followed.So should an official list of these precedents be maintained, or are they simply kept in the minutes (where their burial becomes perhaps inevitable...)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 10, 2012 at 04:46 PM Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 at 04:46 PM So should an official list of these precedents be maintained, or are they simply kept in the minutes (where their burial becomes perhaps inevitable...)?The bylaws should be amended to remove the need for interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louise Posted October 10, 2012 at 06:01 PM Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 at 06:01 PM The bylaws should be amended to remove the need for interpretation.Well, that makes sense. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted October 10, 2012 at 06:06 PM Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 at 06:06 PM The bylaws should be amended to remove the need for interpretation.Well, that makes sense. Thank you.RONR often does. RONR (11th ed.), p. 589, ll. 1-3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louise Posted October 10, 2012 at 06:47 PM Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 at 06:47 PM RONR often does. RONR (11th ed.), p. 589, ll. 1-3Ah, a page number. Thank you very much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted October 11, 2012 at 04:19 AM Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 at 04:19 AM But whoa. P. 251 - 252 barely mentions this solution, and almost as an afterthought. If we look at p. 251, line 28 to p. 252, line 13, then Louise's question (post 6) remains pending.I would answer (and I see I do) that RONR doesn't mention it, and that it seems sensible to me, whether it's an official list or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.