Guest Ourania Posted October 21, 2013 at 01:03 AM Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 at 01:03 AM We are working on amendments to the bylaws and we want to give "lifetime" membership to deserving lond time members. They will have all the rights and priviledges of dues paying members except they will not be paying dues. The chair of the bylaw committee claims that we need to create a seperate membership class. Other committee members believe there is no need for a different class. Any thoughts?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted October 21, 2013 at 01:45 AM Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 at 01:45 AM According to the footnote on p. 463 of RONR, 11th ed., life memberships can be provided for in a society's bylaws. Whether you want to call them a separate class or not is up to you, but you will need some way to distinguish them from the non-lifetime dues paying members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted October 21, 2013 at 01:51 AM Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 at 01:51 AM And give some thought to the problem someone could have if he/she became dissatisfied or unhappy with the aims and purposes of the association and wished to be no longer associated with the group. How does one resign a life membership, short of ... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 21, 2013 at 01:33 PM Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 at 01:33 PM Any thoughts? Keep membership simple . . . and equal . . . and "reward" them in some other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 21, 2013 at 03:13 PM Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 at 03:13 PM And give some thought to the problem someone could have if he/she became dissatisfied or unhappy with the aims and purposes of the association and wished to be no longer associated with the group. How does one resign a life membership, short of ... ? I don't see any reason why someone could not resign from life membership the same way he could resign from regular membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted October 21, 2013 at 03:48 PM Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 at 03:48 PM Ah, but suppose the association refuses to accept his request to leave? Because, say, he is a notable person and the association wishes to continue to claim him as a member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted October 21, 2013 at 03:55 PM Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 at 03:55 PM Ah, but suppose the association refuses to accept his request to leave? Because, say, he is a notable person and the association wishes to continue to claim him as a member. The trouble you're trying to create with this post isn't confined solely to life membership, which is why RONR says what is says on p. 291-292. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 21, 2013 at 04:10 PM Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 at 04:10 PM Ah, but suppose the association refuses to accept his request to leave? Because, say, he is a notable person and the association wishes to continue to claim him as a member. In such an event, if we assume that the member is in good standing, he would no longer have any of the obligations of membership (there may be obligations other than dues) so long as he does not avail himself of the privileges of membership. As George notes, the same thing could happen with a dues-paying member, but he would no longer be obliged to pay dues. Beyond that, I think it ceases being a parliamentary problem and becomes a public relations and legal problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted October 21, 2013 at 04:33 PM Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 at 04:33 PM It's not the loss of "obligations/privileges of membership" that concern my life member, it is the fact that his (famous, recognizable) name remains on the membership rolls and the association can (properly) point to that fact, even though the lifer is (now, since his change of views) in total disagrement with the aims of the association. Unethical by the association, to be sure, but not unheard of. A "regular member" could "get out" of the association by (in many typical bylaws) not paying his dues and, per the bylaws, be dropped from membership. The lifer can't, it appears, without additional bylaw provisions defining his "exit strategy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g40 Posted October 21, 2013 at 06:16 PM Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 at 06:16 PM I wonder if there might be another way to do this that leaves the organization more options and flexibility if a "lifetime" member has or develops some of the situations cited. Perhaps allow a "Lifetime Achievement" award to allow waiving dues (at the option, say, of the board). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Orsolya Posted October 21, 2013 at 06:31 PM Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 at 06:31 PM And give some thought to the problem someone could have if he/she became dissatisfied or unhappy with the aims and purposes of the association and wished to be no longer associated with the group. How does one resign a life membership, short of ... ?Have the bylaws allow 'unilateral' resignation of LM--perhaps, say, effective upon receipt of request? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 21, 2013 at 06:39 PM Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 at 06:39 PM I wonder if there might be another way to do this that leaves the organization more options and flexibility if a "lifetime" member has or develops some of the situations cited. Perhaps allow a "Lifetime Achievement" award to allow waiving dues (at the option, say, of the board). Other than the name, I don't see how that's different from what the original poster proposed. Also, Dr. Stackpole's concerns don't seem to be that the organization doesn't have enough flexibility. If anything, he's concerned that it has too much flexibility. Have the bylaws allow 'unilateral' resignation of LM--perhaps, say, effective upon receipt of request? You could do that, but there may be a situation where the society wishes to expel a lifetime member for misconduct. By adopting such a rule, you'd allow the member to dodge punishment by resigning. In some cases the society might be perfectly happy to accept that and get it over with, but in other cases the society might wish to expel him instead. If the members of your society generally behave like reasonable people and don't try to force someone to be a "member" against his will, I don't see the need for any special rules on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Orsolya Posted October 21, 2013 at 07:00 PM Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 at 07:00 PM ... You could do that, but there may be a situation where the society wishes to expel a lifetime member for misconduct. By adopting such a rule, you'd allow the member to dodge punishment by resigning. In some cases the society might be perfectly happy to accept that and get it over with, but in other cases the society might wish to expel him instead. ...Ah, good call, the flip side question--can life membership be revoked short of ... Call no man happy before his death--grant no man life membership likewise, perhaps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 21, 2013 at 07:03 PM Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 at 07:03 PM Ah, good call, the flip side question--can life membership be revoked short of ... Yes, and the flip side answer is I don't see any reason why someone could not be expelled from life membership the same way he could be expelled from regular membership (unless the bylaws provide otherwise). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted October 21, 2013 at 08:38 PM Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 at 08:38 PM I think that's certainly the case if by 'expelled from life membership' you mean expelled from being a member of the society. But if life membership is defined as being granted after so many years of membership (as it is in my organization), removing a member from that category, but not from the society, might be problematic. I guess to the OP's credit, she did talk about bestowing lifetime memberships on deserving long-time members, which provides the society with some leeway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 21, 2013 at 08:44 PM Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 at 08:44 PM I think that's certainly the case if by 'expelled from life membership' you mean expelled from being a member of the society. Yes, that is what I meant. Whether (or how) a member could be removed from life membership, but not from the society will depend on the rules for life membership in the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 21, 2013 at 08:46 PM Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 at 08:46 PM I guess to the OP's credit, she did talk about bestowing lifetime memberships on deserving long-time members, which provides the society with some leeway. Well, putting aside the fact that "deserving" is in the eye of the beholder (or, in this case, voter), a member who's deserving today might, in a few years, turn out to be not so deserving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.