Edgar Guest Posted October 2, 2014 at 06:26 PM Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 at 06:26 PM . . . the board is not permitted to adopt rules in conflict with those of the assembly Well, neither the board nor "the assembly" is permitted to adopt rules in conflict with the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 2, 2014 at 06:32 PM Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 at 06:32 PM The problem is that someone is trying to apply the board's rules to the assembly. Where do you get the idea that the quoted rule applies only to the board? Sean certainly never said so. The bylaws grant the board the authority to adopt rules and procedures to govern internet voting. I interpret that as meaning the rules for internet voting adopted by the board will apply to the society pursuant to the authority granted in the bylaws. Maybe Sean hasn't made that point clear, but he has certainly never said that those rules apply only to the board. And he has told us more than once that the society has consistently interpreted that rule as applying to the society and as being consistent with the bylaws. We constantly tell posters that we cannot interpret their bylaws for them and that they must interpret their own bylaws. They have already done so in this case and I don't see where Sean questions that interpretation. Why is it that now, in this case and in view of the interpretation already rendered by the society, we are trying to impose our own interpretation on them? Even if we disagree with their interpretation, isn't it their interpretation to make? They and they alone know what the intent of the relevant bylaw provisions are that set a minimum one week notice requirement for internet voting and give the authority to the board to develop additional rules and procedures to govern internet voting. It seems to me that so much disagreement as to how to interpret those bylaw provisions and standing rules constitutes a prima facie case that the meaning is not clear and must be interpreted.... and that only the society can do that. And already has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted October 2, 2014 at 06:42 PM Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 at 06:42 PM And he has told us more than once that the society has consistently interpreted that rule as applying to the society and as being consistent with the bylaws. And the society's interpretation has been consistently wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted October 2, 2014 at 07:12 PM Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 at 07:12 PM Since not even Sean knows exactly what these not entirely hypothetical bylaws and rules say, I don't see how we can provide a not entirely hypothetical opinion about whether the organization's not entirely hypothetical interpretation of its rules is not entirely correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted October 2, 2014 at 07:19 PM Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 at 07:19 PM Where do you get the idea that the quoted rule applies only to the board? Maybe Sean hasn't made that point clear, but he has certainly never said that those rules apply only to the board. Why is it that now, in this case and in view of the interpretation already rendered by the society, we are trying to impose our own interpretation on them? Even if we disagree with their interpretation, isn't it their interpretation to make? ...The Board's standing rules say that two weeks notice is required, rather than the minimum one provided for in the bylaws. It has been historically held, and no one disagrees, that this requirement is consistent with the bylaws, and on a Board-referred vote, if it is not complied with, then the vote is null and void....Emphasis mine. It seems to me that this isn't a question of interpreting the bylaws but rather a question of whether the Board's rules can be binding on the assembly. Since the bylaws are not known, then we must go by what RONR says, and it says the answer is no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 3, 2014 at 12:27 AM Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 at 12:27 AM Why is it that now, in this case and in view of the interpretation already rendered by the society, we are trying to impose our own interpretation on them? Even if we disagree with their interpretation, isn't it their interpretation to make? They and they alone know what the intent of the relevant bylaw provisions are that set a minimum one week notice requirement for internet voting and give the authority to the board to develop additional rules and procedures to govern internet voting. It seems to me that so much disagreement as to how to interpret those bylaw provisions and standing rules constitutes a prima facie case that the meaning is not clear and must be interpreted.... and that only the society can do that. And already has. If we assume for the sake of argument that the society's interpretation of its rules on this subject is correct, notwithstanding any evidence to the contrary, then it would seem to me that the vote is clearly null and void, as then it is clear that insufficient notice was given. Setting the voting date for October 1st does nothing to modify the rule, explicitly or even implicitly (as there was sufficient time to comply with the existing rule when this motion was adopted). I do think it is fair to point out that there may be some flaws in the assembly's analysis, however, since this appears to be a situation the assembly has not faced before and the assembly may wish to reconsider its interpretation of this subject, given the unfortunate consequences in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.