Schroeder Posted January 2, 2013 at 04:34 PM Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 04:34 PM I am confused about the issue of bylaws of a subordinate unit and its parent organization. Our National (parent) Bylaws state: "A subordinate unit shall have power to adopt and amend Bylaws which shall not be in conflict with the Bylaws of the Parent Organization."So here is the scenario; The parent bylaws state that a person must be a member of a subordinate for one year before becoming an officer of the subordinate. A subordinate wants its Bylaws to read that a person must be a member for one year AND serve as a Director of the subordinate for one year before becoming an officer of the subordinate.Is this a conflict on a clearly requisite point of the parent organization Bylaws?Any help would be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 2, 2013 at 04:47 PM Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 04:47 PM Is this a conflict on a clearly requisite point of the parent organization Bylaws?Well, this takes us precariously into the realm of bylaw interpretation, which is frowned upon here. For some helpful insights, see pp. 588-591 (RONR 11th Ed).It would seem, though, that the parent bylaw is being respected by this proposed subordinate bylaw, since the (national) requirement of one year membership is still being enforced, avoiding any conflict. Wouldn't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 2, 2013 at 05:12 PM Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 05:12 PM It would seem, though, that the parent bylaw is being respected by this proposed subordinate bylaw, since the (national) requirement of one year membership is still being enforced, avoiding any conflict. Wouldn't you agree? I would. But since we're not members, nobody will care what we think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 2, 2013 at 05:21 PM Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 05:21 PM I am confused about the issue of bylaws of a subordinate unit and its parent organization. Our National (parent) Bylaws state: "A subordinate unit shall have power to adopt and amend Bylaws which shall not be in conflict with the Bylaws of the Parent Organization."So here is the scenario; The parent bylaws state that a person must be a member of a subordinate for one year before becoming an officer of the subordinate. A subordinate wants its Bylaws to read that a person must be a member for one year AND serve as a Director of the subordinate for one year before becoming an officer of the subordinate.Is this a conflict on a clearly requisite point of the parent organization Bylaws?Any help would be appreciated.The language of the parent organization's bylaws is a vital part of determining the meaning. There's a difference between "an individual who has been a member for at least one year shall be eligible for x" and "no individual shall be eligible for x until he has been a member for at least one year." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted January 2, 2013 at 05:23 PM Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 05:23 PM Is this a conflict on a clearly requisite point of the parent organization Bylaws?Perhaps. Perhaps not.If it is the intent of the superior organization that that one requirement is the only requirement, then it would be improper for a subordinate unit to add additional requirements. On the other hand, if the intent is to simply establish a minimum requirement, then additional requirements would not necessarily be out of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 2, 2013 at 05:23 PM Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 05:23 PM I would. But since we're not members, nobody will care what we think.If no one cared what we thought, would we really be getting questions?That's a question . . . because I care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schroeder Posted January 2, 2013 at 08:02 PM Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 08:02 PM Thank you all for responding to my inquiry. I appreciate the quick responses. A couple comments/questions.My intention was not to ask for an interpretation of our bylaws. I understand this is not the purpose of the forum. RONR is not detailed on the issue of the conflicts such as I described. I know that a subordinate cannot create a rule that is less restrictive than the parent (i.e. 6 months of membership as opposed to 1 year), but can it create more restrictive rules?David, I agree to a point, but can a subordinate create rules which the parent never intended? Can the subordinate say one has to be a member for 10 years to become as officer?Tim, I understand your point. If it helps any, the Bylaws actually read: "Each officer shall be a member in good standing of the subordinate for at least one year at the time of his/her election." What do you think?Edgar, What requirement would be out of order?Again, thanks for your help. I look forward to any additional thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted January 2, 2013 at 08:04 PM Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 08:04 PM A subordinate wants its Bylaws to read that a person must be a member for one year AND serve as a Director of the subordinate for one year before becoming an officer of the subordinate.Is this a conflict on a clearly requisite point of the parent organization Bylaws?Any help would be appreciated.Actually, if your organization adheres to RONR, it's a conflict with itself. In the chapter on the content and composition of bylaws, RONR says "Directors should be classed as officers." (RONR, 11th ed., p.572, l.23) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted January 2, 2013 at 08:13 PM Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 08:13 PM My intention was not to ask for an interpretation of our bylaws. . . .If it helps any, the Bylaws actually read: "Each officer shall be a member in good standing of the subordinate for at least one year at the time of his/her election." What do you think?Sounds like a request for interpretation to me.Edgar, What requirement would be out of order?The proposed additional requirement of service on the board might conflict with the sole requirement in the national bylaws. There is a "principle of interpretation" in RONR which says that if the bylaws authorize certain things specifically (e.g. eligibility requirements), other things of the same class (e.g. additional requirements) are thereby prohibited (p.589). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 2, 2013 at 08:38 PM Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 08:38 PM Tim, I understand your point. If it helps any, the Bylaws actually read: "Each officer shall be a member in good standing of the subordinate for at least one year at the time of his/her election." What do you think?If this is all there is of any relevance in the parent's bylaws, then a subordinate's bylaws may provide that a person must have been a member in good standing of the subordinate for at least one year and must also have served as a director of the subordinate for at least one year in order to be eligible for election as an officer of the subordinate.Next question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 2, 2013 at 09:01 PM Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 at 09:01 PM If this is all there is of any relevance in the parent's bylaws, then a subordinate's bylaws may provide that a person must have ***[been a member in good standing of the subordinate for at least one year and must also have]*** served as a director of the subordinate for at least one year in order to be eligible for election as an officer of the subordinate.Next question. And, while the language in brackets may be of some comfort as a safeguard against the possibility of the parent organization lowering the requirement in its bylaws, so long as the parent's bylaws include this provision, its inclusion in the bylaws of the subordinate has no bearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 3, 2013 at 08:41 PM Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 at 08:41 PM Dan HonemannI will not interpret bylaws on this forum.I will not interpret bylaws on this forum.I will not interpret bylaws on this forum.Darnit, I will not interpret bylaws on this forum.Maybe the rest of 2013 will be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 3, 2013 at 08:42 PM Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 at 08:42 PM I really mean it this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 3, 2013 at 08:42 PM Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 at 08:42 PM And it'll be my birthday sooner or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 3, 2013 at 08:48 PM Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 at 08:48 PM I will not interpret bylaws on this forum.I will not interpret bylaws on this forum.I will not interpret bylaws on this forum.Darnit, I will not interpret bylaws on this forum.Unless you're raking it in like SG and I are, I don't blame you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 3, 2013 at 09:12 PM Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 at 09:12 PM $4.51 an hour. You Visigoth. Attica! Attica! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.