Edgar Guest Posted October 17, 2014 at 09:37 PM Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 at 09:37 PM But since the bylaws specify how they may be amended, couldn't the rule provide for its own removal without the need of additional action? Yes. It can specify a limited period of time that the amendment is in effect and can specify a definite date after which that provision ceases to have any effect. But that's not the same thing as Mr. Fish's automatic removal from the bylaws. I'm not so sure about that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 17, 2014 at 10:04 PM Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 at 10:04 PM But that's not the same thing as Mr. Fish's automatic removal from the bylaws. I'm not so sure about that one.No need to remove it. Just say that it ceases to be effective after a certain date. It's not that unusual to have bylaws and even statutes and city charters that have provisions that cease to be effective after a certain date and others that don't become effective until a future date. It can be removed when the bylaws are next amended, if the society wants to "tidy things up" so that a provision no longer in effect isn't in there. But, there's no need to if it ceases to be effective after a certain date by its own terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted October 17, 2014 at 10:16 PM Report Share Posted October 17, 2014 at 10:16 PM It can be removed when the bylaws are next amended, It can and should. But Mr. Fish was suggesting that it could somehow automatically remove itself. And I'm still not so sure about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted October 18, 2014 at 12:24 AM Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 at 12:24 AM Unless the official bylaws are stored electronically, I don't suppose there is a way for the removal to be "automatically", but as long as authorized to do so, the secretary could remove the portions that no longer apply from the official documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 18, 2014 at 01:04 AM Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 at 01:04 AM Unless the official bylaws are stored electronically, I don't suppose there is a way for the removal to be "automatically", but as long as authorized to do so, the secretary could remove the portions that no longer apply from the official documents.I think you are right. I think the society could authorize the secretary to do just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted October 18, 2014 at 02:22 PM Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 at 02:22 PM . . . as long as authorized to do so, the secretary could remove the portions that no longer apply from the official documents. I think you are right. I think the society could authorize the secretary to do just that. But could the society do so without following the procedures for amending the bylaws? Edited to add: I have the nagging suspicion that I might be confusing the map with the territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 18, 2014 at 04:14 PM Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 at 04:14 PM But could the society do so without following the procedures for amending the bylaws? Yes, I think so. This strikes me mostly as a ministerial act which is often necessary after bylaw amendments. A typical example is renumbering of bylaw provisions to take into account amendments which add or delete sections. I emphasize, though, that I see no need to remove a provision that is clearly, according to its own terms, not applicable after a certain date. I've seen several sets of bylaws with similar provisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted October 19, 2014 at 05:40 PM Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 at 05:40 PM I emphasize, though, that I see no need to remove a provision that is clearly, according to its own terms, not applicable after a certain date. I've seen several sets of bylaws with similar provisions. But wouldn't you describe those bylaws as, say, "bloated"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 21, 2014 at 03:11 AM Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 at 03:11 AM Yes, I think so. This strikes me mostly as a ministerial act which is often necessary after bylaw amendments. A typical example is renumbering of bylaw provisions to take into account amendments which add or delete sections. I emphasize, though, that I see no need to remove a provision that is clearly, according to its own terms, not applicable after a certain date. I've seen several sets of bylaws with similar provisions.The motion in RONR which authorizes the Secretary to renumber articles and sections and make corrections to spelling, grammar, and punctuation, and update cross-references does not authorize the Secretary to remove sections of the bylaws which are no longer applicable, and I am skeptical that it would be proper to amend the motion to include such authority.If the bylaws themselves grant the Secretary such authority, however, as Mr. Fish suggests, then that seems proper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted October 21, 2014 at 02:02 PM Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 at 02:02 PM . . . I am skeptical that it would be proper to amend the motion to include such authority. But what if the motion to amend the bylaws included a proviso that, at the end of two years, the new rule would no longer be considered a part of the bylaws? This is my map/territory problem. If the document called "the bylaws" (the map) is just a convenient compendium of certain adopted rules (the territory), and if one of those rules is no longer part of "the bylaws", can't it simply be omitted the next time copies of "the bylaws" are created? Consider, by way of rough analogy, a membership list. There may be current members who are missing from the list and there may be persons on the list who are no longer members. The list (the map) is not the membership (the territory). The Bylaws (the document) is not the bylaws (the rules). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 21, 2014 at 11:59 PM Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 at 11:59 PM But what if the motion to amend the bylaws included a proviso that, at the end of two years, the new rule would no longer be considered a part of the bylaws? This is my map/territory problem. If the document called "the bylaws" (the map) is just a convenient compendium of certain adopted rules (the territory), and if one of those rules is no longer part of "the bylaws", can't it simply be omitted the next time copies of "the bylaws" are created? Consider, by way of rough analogy, a membership list. There may be current members who are missing from the list and there may be persons on the list who are no longer members. The list (the map) is not the membership (the territory). The Bylaws (the document) is not the bylaws (the rules). No, I don't think so. "It is important to note that, although the time when a bylaw amendment takes effect can be delayed by the assembly, the amendment becomes part of the bylaws immediately upon adoption. If the amended bylaws are printed, a footnote or similar device should indicate that the amended language is not yet in effect and, if language was removed by the amendment, the text of that provision should be given if it is still applicable in the organization." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 598) By the same token, it is in order to provide that a portion of the bylaws shall no longer be in effect after a certain time, but it is still a part of the bylaws. I don't think a proviso can get around that. Unless the bylaws provide otherwise, the bylaws may only be amended by amending the bylaws. For this reason, it is best to put temporary provisions in provisos whenever possible. Since provisos are not themselves part of the bylaws, they can and should be removed from printed copies of the bylaws when they are no longer applicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted October 22, 2014 at 12:07 AM Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 at 12:07 AM Since provisos are not themselves part of the bylaws, they can and should be removed from printed copies of the bylaws when they are no longer applicable. So they must be included at some point but then the secretary (presumably) can simply delete them later? I still can't help but think we're conflating the bylaws (the territory) with "printed copies of the bylaws" (the map). But don't lose sleep over this. Sadly, I probably will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.