Adopting Robert's Rules of Order - Incorporated Association

[Guest AboutFace]

On the page How Your Organization Can Adopt RONR (http://www.robertsrules.com/authority.html) it states: "Pay particular attention to the footnote on page 580 of RONR (11th ed.) if your organization is incorporated."

As I do not yet have a copy of RONR, can someone tell me what the footnote says and explain the relevance to incorporated associations?

Thanks in advance!
James

[George Mervosh]

On the page How Your Organization Can Adopt RONR (http://www.robertsrules.com/authority.html) it states: "Pay particular attention to the footnote on page 580 of RONR (11th ed.) if your organization is incorporated."

As I do not yet have a copy of RONR, can someone tell me what the footnote says and explain the relevance to incorporated associations?

Thanks in advance!

James

 

Here is what it says:

 

"Where a particular type of organization is subject to local, state, or national law containing provisions relating to its procedure—as for certain procedures in a labor organization, in condominium associations, or in an incorporated association—it may be desirable to add at this point a phrase such as, "and any statutes applicable to this organization that do not authorize the provisions of these bylaws to take precedence." However, such statutes (those that do not authorize bylaws to take precedence) supersede all rules of the organization which conflict with them, even if no mention is made of it in the bylaws"

[Guest Guest]

Thank you SO much, George! Your assistance and information is VERY much appreciated.

- James

[Gary Novosielski]

In fact, you could even make the case that an amendment to add that language would be out of order since RONR already says all that, and so adoption of the amended language would be a motion that accomplishes the same thing as doing nothing.

 

(Well, except for the fact that RONR says you might actually want to do it.)

[Timothy]

In fact, you could even make the case that an amendment to add that language would be out of order since RONR already says all that, and so adoption of the amended language would be a motion that accomplishes the same thing as doing nothing.

 

(Well, except for the fact that RONR says you might actually want to do it.)

 

Are you saying that RONR could be wrong? That is like worse than sacrilege.

[Josh Martin]

In fact, you could even make the case that an amendment to add that language would be out of order since RONR already says all that, and so adoption of the amended language would be a motion that accomplishes the same thing as doing nothing.

 

(Well, except for the fact that RONR says you might actually want to do it.)

 

It is correct that so far as RONR is concerned, it is already the case that if an applicable procedural rule in local, state, or federal law permits the society's bylaws to take precedence over the rule in the statute, RONR also takes precedence over the rule in the statute if the society has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority in its bylaws.

 

It is my understanding, however, that this may or may not hold up in a court of law, and so RONR suggests the adoption of the proposed language in the bylaws to clarify the society's intent. Therefore, I would not conclude that "an amendment to add that language would be out of order since RONR already says all that, and so adoption of the amended language would be a motion that accomplishes the same thing as doing nothing."

[Gary Novosielski]

Well that's why I said "you could" make the case.  You won't catch me doing it.

[George Mervosh]

Well that's why I said "you could" make the case.  You won't catch me doing it.

 

The craziness in post #4 caused a good explanation to be posted in post #6, so it was almost worth it, but not quite. 

[Gary Novosielski]

The craziness in post #4 caused a good explanation to be posted in post #6, so it was almost worth it, but not quite. 

I live to serve, almost.