Guest Bruce Posted October 2, 2014 at 01:31 PM Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 at 01:31 PM Can the parent body make laws that will supersede the by laws of the groups under them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted October 2, 2014 at 01:33 PM Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 at 01:33 PM I suppose they might be able to but as in many cases the devil is in the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted October 2, 2014 at 01:54 PM Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 at 01:54 PM Can the parent body make laws that will supersede the by laws of the groups under them. Isn't that authority pretty much what makes a parent body a parent body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 2, 2014 at 02:02 PM Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 at 02:02 PM While agreeing in in principle with Edgar Guest, I would give a qualified "yes". If there is currently no provision for the parent body to do so, enacting a provision ex post facto to give the "parent" body that authority over what might now be independent affiliates could conceivably run into legal problems. I think it is as Chris Harrison said: "The devil is in the details". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted October 2, 2014 at 02:34 PM Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 at 02:34 PM . . . enacting a provision ex post facto to give the "parent" body that authority over what might now be independent affiliates could conceivably run into legal problems. Who said anything about giving the parent body any authority?. Presumably a parent body already has authority. And who said anything about "independent affiliates"? We're talking about a "parent" and, presumably, "children" here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 2, 2014 at 02:43 PM Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 at 02:43 PM Who said anything about giving the parent body any authority?. Presumably a parent body already has authority. And who said anything about "independent affiliates"? We're talking about a "parent" and, presumably, "children" here. Well, I guess you are clairvoyant and know more about this organization and how the "parent" and it's affiliates/subordinates were created and pursuant to what state laws and what the bylaws of all of the various associated organizations and the "parent" organization say and what the contracts and agreements entered into between them say. Nor do I know exactly what kind of control this "parent' body suddenly wants to exercise. I'm not privy to all of that and I suspect Mr. Harrison isn't either and that our lack of knowledge of such facts is why we say "the devil is in the details". I think you are "presuming" quite a bit. Since you apparently know all of these details, please fill us in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 2, 2014 at 03:41 PM Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 at 03:41 PM Can the parent body make laws that will supersede the by laws of the groups under them. Yes. They usually do this by establishing the subordinate groups themselves, handing them a finished set of bylaws, or allowing groups to seek affiliation, and requiring that their bylaws say certain things that grant authority to the parent group. They can't come shoot you if you disobey, but if you violate the conditions of the affiliation, they can kick you out, and maybe even take your stuff on the way out the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted October 2, 2014 at 03:55 PM Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 at 03:55 PM Since you apparently know all of these details, please fill us in. On the contrary. I only assumed that, since there was a "parent", there'd be "children". You filled in the detail of the "independent affiliates". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 2, 2014 at 04:02 PM Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 at 04:02 PM On the contrary. I only assumed that, since there was a "parent", there'd be "children". You filled in the detail of the "independent affiliates".And parents can't do whatever they want to with children. There are limits. And legally and technically, affiliate may well be the more appropriate term. I don't know what their relationship is and what agreements they have entered into and you don't know either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted October 2, 2014 at 05:42 PM Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 at 05:42 PM And legally and technically, affiliate may well be the more appropriate term. If only Guest Bruce had used it. And don't forget the "independent" part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bruce Posted October 2, 2014 at 06:41 PM Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 at 06:41 PM The way that we are established there are By-Laws for the parent body and also by- laws for each sub-organization of the parent body. However, the sub-organization cannot make laws which will be in conflict with the parent organization. The problem that we are facing, the parent made a law that the child feels that they should not have to go along with because it did not go through them first. Your thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted October 2, 2014 at 06:44 PM Report Share Posted October 2, 2014 at 06:44 PM Your thoughts. Get new parents. Or, per Mr. Brown, declare yourselves an "independent affiliate". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 3, 2014 at 12:56 AM Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 at 12:56 AM The way that we are established there are By-Laws for the parent body and also by- laws for each sub-organization of the parent body. However, the sub-organization cannot make laws which will be in conflict with the parent organization. The problem that we are facing, the parent made a law that the child feels that they should not have to go along with because it did not go through them first. Your thoughts. Does the parent organization's bylaws require that amendments to its bylaws "go through" the child organization first? If so, then you might have something. If not, then I think you're stuck with the new rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 3, 2014 at 04:06 PM Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 at 04:06 PM The way that we are established there are By-Laws for the parent body and also by- laws for each sub-organization of the parent body. However, the sub-organization cannot make laws which will be in conflict with the parent organization. The problem that we are facing, the parent made a law that the child feels that they should not have to go along with because it did not go through them first. Your thoughts.Do the bylaws require them to "go through" the subordinate organizations? If so, then you have a valid point. But if not, your choices are to: 1) complain, presuming there is some process for doing so, 2) comply with the new rule, or 3) disaffiliate yourself from the parent organization, if that's possible, which it might or might not be, depending on those bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted October 3, 2014 at 08:57 PM Report Share Posted October 3, 2014 at 08:57 PM S1.) The way that we are established there are Bylaws for the parent body and also Bylaws for each sub-organization of the parent body.S2.)However, the sub-organization cannot make laws which will be in conflict with the parent organization.[...]S3.) The parent made a law that the child feels that they should not have to go along with because it did not go through them first.Reply to S1: This sounds like a parallel to the Toastmasters International format. -- All clubs of Toastmasters have identical bylaws. And no club may customize its bylaws. Reply to S2: This is normal in countless "affiliation" arrangments. No surprise here. Reply to S3: This is not even a rational argument. -- The inferior organization is arguing that the superior organization must ask permission of its affiliates (all of them? some of them?) before amending the superior organization's bylaws? The tail does not wag the dog.The lowly nonprofit who sends dues upward to International/National may "pay" the piper, but never calls the tune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 4, 2014 at 12:02 AM Report Share Posted October 4, 2014 at 12:02 AM Reply to S3: This is not even a rational argument. -- The inferior organization is arguing that the superior organization must ask permission of its affiliates (all of them? some of them?) before amending the superior organization's bylaws? The tail does not wag the dog.The lowly nonprofit who sends dues upward to International/National may "pay" the piper, but never calls the tune. I don't think it's irrational. In some state or national organizations, amendments to the bylaws must be ratified by some proportion of the organization's constituent units. That may or may not be the case here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.