A society fails to fill one or more positions on the Board

[Guest Guest Confused Ian]

We are trying to formally accept Robert's Rules of Order as a method of organizing our meetings to arrive at a set of bylaws. One of our number has objected to this suggestion because they claim to have heard that if the society fails at any time to fill one or more positions on the Board, that the Board (or perhaps the society - she was not particularly clear) would be forced under the Rules to dissolve.

Is there any truth to this? While I agree that the society perhaps should dissolve, given such a lack of interest, the question is: Must we?

Many thanks,

Ian

[Dan Honemann]

We are trying to formally accept Robert's Rules of Order as a method of organizing our meetings to arrive at a set of bylaws. One of our number has objected to this suggestion because they claim to have heard that if the society fails at any time to fill one or more positions on the Board, that the Board (or perhaps the society - she was not particularly clear) would be forced under the Rules to dissolve.

Is there any truth to this? While I agree that the society perhaps should dissolve, given such a lack of interest, the question is: Must we?

Many thanks,

Ian

 

If you are asking if something in Robert's Rules of Order says that if a society fails at any time to fill one or more positions on its Board, that the Board (or the society) would be forced to dissolve, the answer is no.

[Edgar Guest]

Is there any truth to this? 

 

No. Vacancies on boards occur all the time (due, for example, to an incomplete election or a resignation) without bringing the business of the board to a halt, let alone requiring the dissolution of the society.

 

Certainly a society has an obligation to obey its bylaws by electing a full complement of board members and it should continue to make a good-faith effort to do so. But, in the meantime, life goes on.

[Gary Novosielski]

We are trying to formally accept Robert's Rules of Order as a method of organizing our meetings to arrive at a set of bylaws. One of our number has objected to this suggestion because they claim to have heard that if the society fails at any time to fill one or more positions on the Board, that the Board (or perhaps the society - she was not particularly clear) would be forced under the Rules to dissolve.

 

If I had a nickel for every time someone "heard" some crazy thing that RONR supposedly said (but of course did not), I'd have a truckload of nickels.

[Timothy]

Perhaps it would be wise to read RONR before adopting it. Just a thought.

[Edgar Guest]

Perhaps it would be wise to read RONR before adopting it. Just a thought.

 

I'm afraid RONR would rarely be adopted if reading it was a prerequisite.

[Timothy]

Perhaps, but it would still be a wise thing to do.

[Edgar Guest]

Perhaps, but it would still be a wise thing to do.

 

I'm sure you're right. I've added it to my "to do" list.

[Guest Ian]

Thank-you all so much for you assistance.

Confused Ian

[sMargaret]

Also, Confused Ian, a phrase that will serve you in good stead as you discuss RONR, and people come up with weird comments, is "Can you please show me where it says that in here?" (said as you hand them a copy of the Book).

[Robert B Fish]

Most of the rules you will find in RONR make sense, when you consider the "Why" behind the rule.  A sure "red flag" arises when someone says "RONR says..." and the statement fails to pass the "makes sense" test.  If so, ask for their page citation to RONR.  If they can't come up with it, you should at least get everyone to agree to set their statement aside until it can be further researched.  

 

Also, don't forget that rules in your Bylaws and applicable statutes supersede RONR.  Why?  1) Because your bylaws (probably) say so; and 2) because RONR says so.

 

-Bob