Eligible Members

[Guest Walter]

I have a recollection of reading something on this forum that pertains to my question, but I don't recall which thread, so I'll ask--

Suppose that bylaws describe those eligible for membership as follows:

"All men born with a right arm that bears stripes and all women born with a left foot that bear polka dots are eligible for membership."

And then a man with a polka dotted right arm and a woman with a striped foot claim they are eligible members.

As I understand it, when a specific class of individuals eligible for membership are described, those who do not fall within the described class are excluded. As I recall, this principle of exclusion also applies in other ways within Robert's Rules.

1) Am I on the right track in my understanding?

2) Can someone please provide supportive and specific citations and examples, respectively?

Thank you.

[Dan Honemann]

I have a recollection of reading something on this forum that pertains to my question, but I don't recall which thread, so I'll ask--

Suppose that bylaws describe those eligible for membership as follows:

"All men born with a right arm that bears stripes and all women born with a left foot that bear polka dots are eligible for membership."

And then a man with a polka dotted right arm and a woman with a striped foot claim they are eligible members.

As I understand it, when a specific class of individuals eligible for membership are described, those who do not fall within the described class are excluded. As I recall, this principle of exclusion also applies in other ways within Robert's Rules.

1) Am I on the right track in my understanding?

2) Can someone please provide supportive and specific citations and examples, respectively?

Thank you.

See if the principles of interpretation found on pages 588-91 of RONR, 11th ed., contain what you are looking for (particularly No. 4).

[David A Foulkes]

If Mr. Honemann's suggestion doesn't pan out, you might try being less creative with your question, and get more to the point.

As I understand it, when a specific class of individuals eligible for membership are described, those who do not fall within the described class are excluded. As I recall, this principle of exclusion also applies in other ways within Robert's Rules.

Yes. For instance, there is often a Board membership, comprising officers and directors, as well as a general membership. If you are not an officer or director, then you aren't a member of the Board. You are (or can be) excluded from their meetings. The bylaws may require 60 days notice to be amended at any regular meeting, and so without such notice, during New Business no motion may be made to amend the bylaws (such motions are excluded from valid business). There are variations on the exclusionary concept you describe, yes. If you were more specific with your question, there might be more specific citations and examples available as requested. The rule covering potential members with artisticly decorated limbs was dropped, beginning with the 7th Edition, if memory serves, after that civil rights debacle in Waukegan that carried all the way to the Supreme Court, with ROR being used as supportive documentation by both sides. It got ugly. There's a YouTube video of opening arguments around here somewhere.

[Guest Walter]

If Mr. Honemann's suggestion doesn't pan out, you might try being less creative with your question, and get more to the point.

I got to the point just the way that suited me and elicited very helpful replies.

*paints polka dots on Mr. Foulkes limbs lest he feel excluded*

The rule covering potential members with artisticly decorated limbs was dropped, beginning with the 7th Edition, if memory serves, after that civil rights debacle in Waukegan that carried all the way to the Supreme Court, with ROR being used as supportive documentation by both sides. It got ugly. There's a YouTube video of opening arguments around here somewhere.

Surely you jest.

[David A Foulkes]

Don't call me Shirley.