Standing rule vs. legal document

[Guest Heidi Martin]

A recent event for our organization created conflict due to protocol (standing rule) saying a certain person had to be invited and given complimentary ticket, seat at head table, and invitation to a reception. The contract for the speaker said no free tickets, no head table guests who were not donors of $5k or more and no guests to reception other than donors, who had 4 tickets each.

 

Doesn't Roberts Rules address that if a rule of an organization is in conflict with a legal instrument (i.e. law or contract) then the legal document trumps the standing rule?

 

Thanks!

[Rockp2]

I think (and there are others here more qualified, so stay tuned), the legal instruments are laws, ordinances, etc...but not items like contracts that were made after the organizations bylaws.  In fact, it could be possible that certain contracts might be considered a continuing breech as they were entered into in conflict with the bylaws.

[Josh Martin]

A recent event for our organization created conflict due to protocol (standing rule) saying a certain person had to be invited and given complimentary ticket, seat at head table, and invitation to a reception. The contract for the speaker said no free tickets, no head table guests who were not donors of $5k or more and no guests to reception other than donors, who had 4 tickets each.

 

Doesn't Roberts Rules address that if a rule of an organization is in conflict with a legal instrument (i.e. law or contract) then the legal document trumps the standing rule?

 

Not quite. RONR states that applicable procedural rules in federal, state, or local law take precedence over an organization's rules. There is no parliamentary reason why a society cannot violate a non-procedural rule in a legal document. Of course, there are certainly other reasons why an organization shouldn't do that, so the wisest course of action may be to amend the standing rule in question.

 

It's also possible, depending on the circumstances, that the organization effectively amended the standing rule when it adopted the contract. See Official Interpretation 2006-17 for more information.

 

I think (and there are others here more qualified, so stay tuned), the legal instruments are laws, ordinances, etc...but not items like contracts that were made after the organizations bylaws. In fact, it could be possible that certain contracts might be considered a continuing breech as they were entered into in conflict with the bylaws.

 

I think the main issue here is that the rule in question is not procedural in nature. We are also (thankfully) talking about a conflict with the organization's standing rules, not the bylaws.