Life Membership Renounced to Run for Office

[Guest Guest]

We are seeking professional advice regarding the interpretation of whether something is allowed or not allowed.  We have had a Life Member of our club who has asked to renounce their life membership and pay dues.  Our bylaws state that, “Life Members shall enjoy all the privileges of Regular Membership except they may not hold office and shall be exempt from paying dues.”  Also that, “Dues are payable on or before the first day of January of each year.”  And additionally that, “To be in good standing shall mean that a member's dues have been paid in full for the current year, and that no debt is owed to the club.”

And our Policies and Procedures state under Membership that “Members whose dues are unpaid as of the 1st day of April are considered lapsed.”   Many members pay their dues in September and October for the following year since dues notices are mailed out in October for the next year. We require anyone paying dues after February 1 to pay a $50 reinstatement fee.

 

The question is, if someone pays their dues on September 29 is this be considered as paying for 2014 or would it apply to 2015 since it is after both January 1 and March 31?  Our annual printed membership roster clearly lists each member who is a Life Member in two sections in the book and acknowledges them as such for the full calendar year 2014.  This member submitted intention to run from the floor for office on October 1, 2014 and we need to know if it is permissible for someone to do this,  or must they wait until 2015 to be again considered a Regular Member and therefore eligible to be nominated for office?  We want to follow this correctly.   We are uncertain which items apply and if any are relevant or it should be handled for 2015.  Please advise us. 

 

 

[jstackpo]

RONR doesn't deal with this sort of administrative complexity, but, unless there is some other provision in your bylaws dealing with the matter, it looks (to me) like your Life Member can't resign his/her life membership (short of resigning his life, which is probably not an option) to run for office.

 

Suggestion:  amend your bylaws to make it clear that a Life Member may vote and run for office if he pays the regular membership dues, while still retaining his Life Membership  (which he might want if he looses the election).  Or just remove the "no office, no vote" restriction on Life Membership. 

 

I presume there are steps (like being elected to it as an honor) necessary to becoming a life member so that folks can't claim life membership as a way of getting out of paying dues.

[Guest Guest]

Life Membership is offered to members with a minimum amount of years in the club who have also been of service to the club. Life Membership requires acceptance of the position by the nominee and a 2/3 vote of the board of directors.

[jstackpo]

So, in effect, the Board appoints, or names, someone as worthy of a life membership by adopting an appropriate motion.

 

I suppose the Board could rescind that motion - pp. 305 & 463 - but this might be taken to indicate that the person was no longer "worthy" of the honor.  It is a bit of a conundrum.

[Edgar Guest]

Life Membership requires acceptance of the position by the nominee . . . 

 

So the nominee knows that, by accepting Life Membership, he's giving up the ability to ever serve as an officer?

[Guest Guest]

Yes, the nominee knows and accepts that they are giving up Life Membership when they accept.

[Edgar Guest]

Yes, the nominee knows and accepts that they are giving up Life Membership when they accept.

 

Well, that wasn't the question.

[Guest Guest]

Yes the nominee knows that by accepting Life Membership they cannot serve on the board.

[jstackpo]

Cooked his own Goose.

 

or

 

Hoist with his owne petar.

[Josh Martin]

RONR doesn't deal with this sort of administrative complexity, but, unless there is some other provision in your bylaws dealing with the matter, it looks (to me) like your Life Member can't resign his/her life membership (short of resigning his life, which is probably not an option) to run for office.

 

I disagree. Unless the bylaws provide otherwise, I see no reason why a life member cannot resign from membership. He could then rejoin the society as a regular member.

 

Whether it is possible to do this in time for the election is less clear.

[J. J.]

I disagree. Unless the bylaws provide otherwise, I see no reason why a life member cannot resign from membership. He could then rejoin the society as a regular member.

 

Whether it is possible to do this in time for the election is less clear.

 

 

I agree with this.  There are examples of life members resigning or being expelled.

 

I also would question why someone could not have the status of both "life member" and regular member.

[jstackpo]

I see no reason why a life member cannot resign from membership. He could then rejoin the society as a regular member.

 

I agree with this.  There are examples of life members resigning or being expelled.

 

Just jumping into the piranha tank...

 

P. 463 is quite clear that such honorary memberships are "perpetual--unless rescinded or limited by bylaws" (line 20.)

 

Clearly "rescinded or limited" allows no option for resignation;  expelled might work as a variant on "limited" but only if it is included in bylaws.

 

Think that is dumb?  Fine, write your own rules.

[Richard Brown]

I'm going to wade in, too.  I understand the point John is making, but for several reasons I agree with Josh and J.J.

 

In this case, I view the life membership as more in the nature of a full fledged membership, not an honorary membership, regardless of the purported "one size fits all" language in RONR.  I look at it as not much different from having a life membership in the NRA.  Give em enough money up front, and you're a member for life.  Not an honorary member, but a regular full fledged member just like everyone else, but without the requirement to pay annual dues.  Such a life member can resign from the organization just like any other member can. 

 

In the situation we are here discussing, the "life membership" seems be a bit of a hybrid but mostly in the nature of what I think of as a regular, conventional life membership:  Here a life member has all of the rights of membership except the right to hold office.   Perhaps it has that one aspect of most "honorary" memberships... no right to hold office... but I still view it more as a true life membership as opposed to an "honorary" membership

 

Regardless, I'm of the opinion that if such a life member wants to convert his life membership to a regular membership, and if the organization has no problem with it, he should be able to do so.  Regardless of whether the organization will let him revert to paying dues (and one has to wonder why on earth they would not like that!!), I don't view the life membership as being something that is truly perpetual and that the member is stuck with for the rest of his life whether he wants it or not.   I think the "perpetual" language in RONR is for the benefit of the MEMBER, not the organization, and is just to clarify that it is "permanent" vs something to be voted on yearly.

 

Of course he can renounce it or terminate he.  He can't be compelled to continue to be a life member against his will.   Even if he can't "convert" it, I think he certainly has the right to renounce/cancel/resign from it and rejoin the organization as a regular member, assuming they want him as a member.

 

If I was a voting member of the governing body of that organization, I would say, "Of course, let him convert his life membership to a regular membership.  We can use the annual dues".   

 

I also have a question for Guest Guest:  Why would your organization want a provision in your bylaws that prohibits a life member....who by your organization's own definition has contributed greatly to the organization.... from holding office?  It seems to me like those are precisely the people you DO want holding office.   Perhaps a bylaw amendment is in order? 

[Josh Martin]

I also would question why someone could have the status of both "life member" and regular member.

 

I think you meant to include a "not" in there, and yes, that's a good point. RONR notes for honorary membership that "Rights carried with the honor include the right to attend meetings and to speak, but not to make motions or vote unless the person is also a regular member, or unless the bylaws provide full membership rights." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 463, emphasis added)

 

Just jumping into the piranha tank...

 

P. 463 is quite clear that such honorary memberships are "perpetual--unless rescinded or limited by bylaws" (line 20.)

 

Clearly "rescinded or limited" allows no option for resignation;  expelled might work as a variant on "limited" but only if it is included in bylaws.

 

Think that is dumb?  Fine, write your own rules.

 

I don't think that what is said on pg. 463 is intended to prevent honorary members from voluntarily resigning. 

 

As J. J. notes, however, it may not be necessary for the member to resign.

[jstackpo]

 

I don't think that what is said on pg. 463 is intended to prevent honorary members from voluntarily resigning. 

 

 

But... an honorary member, as described by RONR, appears to have no duties at all.  So how can one "request to be excused from a duty" (AKA "resigning") when there are no duties in place.  It makes no sense whatsoever - it can only be considered a nullity.

[Josh Martin]

But... an honorary member, as described by RONR, appears to have no duties at all.  So how can one "request to be excused from a duty" (AKA "resigning") when there are no duties in place.  It makes no sense whatsoever - it can only be considered a nullity.

 

Yes, but the idea that honorary members are members of a society forever, notwithstanding their personal wishes on the subject, makes even less sense.

 

While it certainly is a bit odd, I see no reason why a member cannot use Request to be Excused from a Duty in order to resign from a position which does not have any actual duties.

[jstackpo]

Yes, but the idea that honorary members are members of a society forever, notwithstanding their personal wishes on the subject, makes even less sense.

 

While it certainly is a bit odd, I see no reason why a member cannot use Request to be Excused from a Duty in order to resign from a position which does not have any actual duties.

 

Agreed, it is a bit nutty to have a membership you can't renounce (not "resign from") but it isn't a logical impossibility as is asking to be excused from a duty you don't have.

[Dan Honemann]

But... an honorary member, as described by RONR, appears to have no duties at all.  So how can one "request to be excused from a duty" (AKA "resigning") when there are no duties in place.  It makes no sense whatsoever - it can only be considered a nullity.

 

RONR certainly does not say that all resignations are, or necessarily must be, requests to be excused from a duty. A resignation from an office or membership that entails no duties at all is still a resignation, even although it is not a request to be excused from a duty.

[J. J.]

I think you meant to include a "not" in there, and yes, that's a good point. RONR notes for honorary membership that "Rights carried with the honor include the right to attend meetings and to speak, but not to make motions or vote unless the person is also a regular member, or unless the bylaws provide full membership rights." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 463, emphasis added)

 

 

I don't think that what is said on pg. 463 is intended to prevent honorary members from voluntarily resigning. 

 

As J. J. notes, however, it may not be necessary for the member to resign.

 

 

Yes, the "not" should be there.  I will edit.

 

If there are two different classes of membership that are not mutually exclusive, but with different qualifications, I would not see any reason why the person could not be both, if the person meets the criteria for both and, of course, unless prohibited in the bylaws.