Guest Guest - Margaret Posted May 12, 2014 at 04:30 PM Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 at 04:30 PM We are currently reviewing membership applications. Our review is to be based on the questions listed on the application. Two applicants have a history that is known by a few of the Board members so they have provided background. These two individuals have identical backgrounds. One person has been approved as a new member and the other person has been denied. During the review process as background was disclosed by the Board members that had knowledge of one of the individuals several board members requested that the applicant confirm. So she gave her side to each story and responded to all questions. This was not done of the other applicant. The one which responded got to a point where she stated why is she being interrogated the questions we are asking are not on the application. This particular person was denied. Did we cross the line with our review process for this particular applicant? In each case the Board was not in agreement with the review process. Reviewing our By Laws (below) its states we vote secret ballot or by mail. This would NOT allow for discuss. Should we even be allowed to discuss applicants and provide input and request additional information? Also, our By Laws do not state we "can" add stipulations for new applicants but it doesn't state we "can't". If as a Board we decided to add probation periods for questionable applicants can we? Sorry I know its a lot but our Board is now at each others throats and I told them we need to get outside input. SECTION 3. Election to Membership. Each applicant for membership shall apply on a form as approved by the Board and which shall provide that the applicant agrees to abide by these bylaws and the rules of The American Kennel Club. The application shall state the name, address, age and occupation of the applicant and it should carry the endorsement of two members in good standing. Accompanying the application, the prospective member shall submit dues payment for the current year. Applicants may be elected by secret ballot at any meeting of the Board of Directors or by vote of the Directors by mail. Affirmative votes of two-thirds of the Directors present at a meeting of the Board or of two-thirds of the entire Board voting by mail shall be required to elect an applicant. An application which has received a negative vote by the Board may be presented by one of the applicants endorsers at the next annual meeting of the Club and the members may elect such applicant by favorable vote of 75% of the members in good standing present. Any applicant not so elected may apply again after six months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted May 12, 2014 at 05:25 PM Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 at 05:25 PM We are currently reviewing membership applications. Our review is to be based on the questions listed on the application. Two applicants have a history that is known by a few of the Board members so they have provided background. These two individuals have identical backgrounds. One person has been approved as a new member and the other person has been denied. During the review process as background was disclosed by the Board members that had knowledge of one of the individuals several board members requested that the applicant confirm. So she gave her side to each story and responded to all questions. This was not done of the other applicant. The one which responded got to a point where she stated why is she being interrogated the questions we are asking are not on the application. This particular person was denied. Did we cross the line with our review process for this particular applicant? In each case the Board was not in agreement with the review process. Nothing in the process described conflicts with RONR. Whether it is consistent with your bylaws is not a question we can answer. It's up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation. Reviewing our By Laws (below) its states we vote secret ballot or by mail. This would NOT allow for discuss. This is not correct. The fact that a motion is (or must be) voted on by ballot does not change whether the motion is debatable. (Although it is certainly correct that there would be no debate if the vote was taken by mail.) Should we even be allowed to discuss applicants and provide input and request additional information? Nothing in RONR would prohibit it. Also, our By Laws do not state we "can" add stipulations for new applicants but it doesn't state we "can't". If as a Board we decided to add probation periods for questionable applicants can we? No. The board cannot add additional stipulations or probation periods unless authorized to do so by the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted May 12, 2014 at 07:24 PM Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 at 07:24 PM Nothing in the process described conflicts with RONR. Provided, of course, that the bylaws give the board the power to vote people into membership. In my experience with organizations where new members must be voted in, it is ordinarily the full membership that does so. But I'm not sure what the defaults in RONR would be (presuming there is a board in the first place). Would this be the sort of power that would come under "affairs of the society between meetings"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted May 12, 2014 at 10:35 PM Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 at 10:35 PM Provided, of course, that the bylaws give the board the power to vote people into membership. It seems fairly clear that they do: "Affirmative votes of two-thirds of the Directors present at a meeting of the Board or of two-thirds of the entire Board voting by mail shall be required to elect an applicant." Would this be the sort of power that would come under "affairs of the society between meetings"? No, I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted May 13, 2014 at 02:48 PM Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 at 02:48 PM It seems fairly clear that they do: "Affirmative votes of two-thirds of the Directors present at a meeting of the Board or of two-thirds of the entire Board voting by mail shall be required to elect an applicant."Oops, I missed that snippet. No, I don't think so. I don't either, but that "power between meetings" provision can get pretty hazy at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.