Longstanding deviation

[Guest Guest]

My organizariont bylaws deny voting rights to certain ranks. In practice, however, these restrictions have been ignored for some time. Can the rules simply be reinforced, or are there grounds for those newly re-denied voting to protest that a precedent has been established?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Once a set of bylaws defines a membership class as being voting (or non-voting as the case may be) then no precedent, no custom, no tradition can override a rule in one's bylaws.

 

If we were talking about a rule "in the nature of a rule of order", then we would be having a different conversation. -- Such rules of order may likely be suspendable.

But definitions, like "classes of membership," are not rules of order.

[Timothy]

Custom has the lowest precedence of any order. If the written bylaws day to do it another way, then the custom falls to the ground. Essentially, you can just start enforcing the bylaws.

[Gary Novosielski]

My organizariont bylaws deny voting rights to certain ranks. In practice, however, these restrictions have been ignored for some time. Can the rules simply be reinforced, or are there grounds for those newly re-denied voting to protest that a precedent has been established?

 

The rules can simply be "reënforced".  There are no grounds to protest, since a written rule (particularly when included in the bylaws) always takes precedence over customary practice.

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . are there grounds for those newly re-denied voting to protest that a precedent has been established?

 

The next time you're stopped for speeding, explain to the officer that you've been speeding on that stretch of road for years and have never been stopped before.

[Chris Harrison]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is in theory you could have prior actions that are null and void if the "votes" of the people who don't have a right to vote could have changed the result of the vote (RONR p. 251[d]).  However, that very well may be a can of worms no one would want to open.