Rev Ed Posted February 2, 2014 at 06:05 AM Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 at 06:05 AM Following the topic found here, I have a question for the more knowledgeable members on this forum: Is it always appropriate to make statements in the By-laws clear. As with the accompanying topic above, if the By-laws read "Ex-officio members shall not have the right to vote" could cause members to question the meaning (as with the link provided above.) Whereas, a statement of "Ex-officio members shall have all the benefits of members, except the right to vote" seems more clear as to the intention. I am just wondering as the second version seems more clearly written to me as far as intention is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted February 2, 2014 at 06:56 AM Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 at 06:56 AM This is not a trick question? Is it a Canadian question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted February 2, 2014 at 07:01 AM Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 at 07:01 AM Kindly forgive my intemperate ejaculation. Let me please propose, as a learning experience: please explain what might be any advantage ("upside," in contemporary slang) to using the first, less specific wording. 300 words or less. (-- unless you want to engage in a discussion, in which case the limit is 300 words or less per sentence. I myself often manage that easily, as do most Canadians. Except high-school graduates.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 2, 2014 at 07:38 AM Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 at 07:38 AM As the son of an English teacher, I am much more comfortable with the second sentence. As soon as one starts messing with the (implied) meaning of a word ("member", ex officio or otherwise) by qualifying it, as in the first sentence, by saying that the meaning is missing something, things get blurred. Is it a redefinition of "member"? A new class of membership, like a "non-voting member"? Or what? A statement of what is "not" the case, doesn't answer the question: "Well, what is the case?" But in the second you keep the explicit definition of member ("shall have all...") on display, so to speak, as one can go look in the book to see what the full list of all the benefits contains. Then you simply strike out one of them: "except...". This is unambiguous. Oh, and by responding to the Canadian question, I am not implying that I view myself as one of "the more knowledgeable members" around here. (That is a negative-type statement, so you can fill in whatever positive traits you wish to impute to me, if any.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted February 2, 2014 at 01:42 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 at 01:42 PM Would it not be better to word it "Ex-officio members shall have all the rights of members, except the right to vote?" If we say that ex officio members have the same benefits as members, then people are going to ask what benefits members have and whether having the same benefits as members means they have the same rights as members. And we might also ask whether a right, as in the case of the right to vote, is a benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 2, 2014 at 01:56 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 at 01:56 PM Would it not be better to word it "Ex-officio members shall have all the rights of members, except the right to vote?" If we say that ex officio members have the same benefits as members, then people are going to ask what benefits members have and whether having the same benefits as members means they have the same rights as members. And we might also ask whether a right, as in the case of the right to vote, is a benefit. Very good point by Mr Fish the Younger. I had had my sights on the monogrammed key fob, but explicit and specific rights have their upside, not to say benefits, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 2, 2014 at 02:04 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 at 02:04 PM Oh, and by responding to the Canadian question, I am not implying that I view myself as one of "the more knowledgeable members" around here. .. MIT, NAP's research committee ... whoever would make that mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted February 2, 2014 at 10:53 PM Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 at 10:53 PM Would it not be better to word it "Ex-officio members shall have all the rights of members, except the right to vote?" If we say that ex officio members have the same benefits as members, then people are going to ask what benefits members have and whether having the same benefits as members means they have the same rights as members. And we might also ask whether a right, as in the case of the right to vote, is a benefit. Timothy, this sort of provides the rationale for why I asked the question. I guess I should have written something like: "Ex-officio members shall have all the rights and responsibilities except the right to vote" - but it shows how the more clearly you can write a By-law, the better. It also opens the door to this: if a By-law is clearly worded and a member raises a Point of Order, would this mean that the Chairman's decision that the Point is not well taken would not be open to an appeal? I would so no, if the By-law is clearly worded. But I think I might get corrected on this one. Oh, and by responding to the Canadian question, I am not implying that I view myself as one of "the more knowledgeable members" around here. (That is a negative-type statement, so you can fill in whatever positive traits you wish to impute to me, if any.) Believe me, you are far more knowledgeable on RONR than I am (or likely will be.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 2, 2014 at 11:22 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 at 11:22 PM Believe me, you are far more knowledgeable on RONR than I am (or likely will be.) Most people would, but you must allow him his Canadian modesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 3, 2014 at 12:34 AM Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 at 12:34 AM Tell that to Dan next time he corrects me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 3, 2014 at 10:25 PM Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 at 10:25 PM It also opens the door to this: if a By-law is clearly worded and a member raises a Point of Order, would this mean that the Chairman's decision that the Point is not well taken would not be open to an appeal? I would so no, if the By-law is clearly worded. But I think I might get corrected on this one. If there cannot be two reasonable opinions on the subject, yes, it means that an Appeal is not in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted February 4, 2014 at 04:51 PM Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 at 04:51 PM If there cannot be two reasonable opinions on the subject, yes, it means that an Appeal is not in order. Gee, you mean I got something right. I need to pat my back for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 4, 2014 at 05:02 PM Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 at 05:02 PM Gee, you mean I got something right. I need to pat my back for that. It does happen frequently. You don't want to get a callus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(160x116)(155x112).jpg.87391bae430d16a91572b9480f32d037.thumb.jpg.b937f423b0676d34fb14d7d4b24343e7.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.