"It doesn't say we can't"

[Guest J]

Hi all-Longtime listener, first-time caller. I advise a union, and some members are attempting to call for a vote on a motion that that has not ever occurred. While our bylaws do give duties that the organization as a whole can vote on, this particular sort of vote is not among them. Then the phrase 'well, it doesn't say we can't do it' comes up.

I thought I remembered somewhere that RONR mentioned that organizations can only perform duties specifically assigned to them - am I dreaming this? Someone help out.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Would you provide more details on this motion? What is it trying to accomplish?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

You are dreaming.

 

Organizations can adopt a new motion on any topic not barred by one's bylaws/constitution.

E.g., "I move that we rob the First National Bank". -- is parliamentarily possible. Robert's Rules won't stop you. (Look higher for a rule which may stop you.)

[Kim Goldsworthy]

. . . also . . .

Organizations are NOT "assigned duties", per se. So I am double-clutching at what you are thinking about.

E.g., A college "Ball Room Dance Club" can pass a resolution on the War in the Middle East. So, it is theoretically possible for your union to adopt a stand on something which has nothing to do with unionism.

[Guest]

Hi all - original poster again. I was reading this piece.

 

The motion has to do with something that occurs naturally: a member receives emeritus status when they move on from the organization, or if professional life takes them to another part of the country. Moving to emeritus is not even voted on - it just is a given. A particular member is not moving on, and is not moving elsewhere, but wants emeritus status anyway for convenience. The bylaws only give the organization the authority to expel a member, but say nothing about adjusting their membership status if they are still around.

I also had read this piece, in particular the note at the bottom: "

When writing our documents, we must too put them in the positive.  It is a general principle that motions be put in the positive.  So should our governing documents.  Because of this basic rule, we don’t have to have lists of “thou shalt not dos”.  If this basic principle would have been understood in ancient times, there made not of have been the need for all the expanded “thou shalt not” laws in the Bible found in the book of Leviticus.  In the new testament, these laws were summed up: love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.  This fulfills the entire law.

            Another point that we must make is that when a power or right is given in specific terms it sets limits or boundaries within which the members can act.  For example, Robert’s Rules states that a board of an organization can only do what is assigned to it in the bylaws."

http://www.parli.com/newsletter/it-doesn-t-say-we-can-t-do-it.

 

 

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Nonetheless, the hinge here is what "emeritus" means.

Under Robert's Rules of Order, "emeritus" means nothing. There is no such thing.

Since you are granting nothing -- no rights, no perqs, no privileges -- then I see nothing wrong with granting a useless title ("emeritus") to anyone, or anything.

***

To the contrary.

If, under your customized rules, "emeritus" means something -- a right, a privilege -- then the method of the bylaws holds, and you cannot grant emeritus titles to anyone or anything except how the bylaw prescribe.

***

Analogy: A "blessing".

If one's bylaws were to say, "Blessings on thee who moves away," then that "rule" is not a bar from the organization bestowing blessings on even more people, places, things.

"Good will" or "best wishes" -- which is what "emeritus" MIGHT mean -- is something an organization can bestow spontaneously.

 

[DrEntropy]

2 hours ago, Guest said:

 

            Another point that we must make is that when a power or right is given in specific terms it sets limits or boundaries within which the members can act.  For example, Robert’s Rules states that a board of an organization can only do what is assigned to it in the bylaws."

 

I can't find this as an exact quote, but the sentiment is basically correct-  BUT this is talking about what a BOARD can do. The organization as whole, as represented at a properly called membership meeting with a quorum present, is a different matter. It doesn't need anything assigned to it, everything is under the memberships control by default unless the bylaws say otherwise.   For most organizations it is this assembly of the members that is the highest authority (subject only to provisions of the bylaws and other such documents).  
 

For the question of whether a main motion is in order, see page 110-111.  In this case I think #1 on that list might be the determining factor, and hinge on bylaw interpretation, for which see RONR 11th edition page 590 and following. 

[Joshua Katz]

Potzbie, why wouldn't explicit permission in the bylaws to wish good will upon those who are leaving limit the ability to otherwise wish good will upon people, under the principle that specific permission for an otherwise permissible act implies a prohibition on other actions of the same class?

Granted, it wouldn't limit my right to say what I want, but it would seem to limit one's ability to speak on behalf of the organization in doing so.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Why?

For titles which are meaningless, or products/services which are administrative in nature, the "violation" of the "automatic" rule carries no penalty.

• It would be wrong to bestow a right or a privilege to Mr. X, where the bylaws only allow certain characteristics to trigger the right/privilege.

• It would harmless to bestow a non-right, a non-privilege, onto Mr. X, where the bylaws allow automatic non-right/non-privilege granting.

***

Example:

Assume a rule: "Members who move out-of-state shall AUTOMATICALLY and INSTANTANEOUSLY be put on the 'switch from email-mailing to postal-mailing' list."

Assume the scenario: Member Mr. X has lost his computer, and will not be getting access to a computer any time soon. He wishes to keep getting "previous notices" and keep getting the "club newsletter." But Mr. X is NOT moving out of state.

Q. Shall the organization's rule be considered a PROHIBITION against the organization putting Mr. X on the postal-mailing list?

(I would opine: "No." Why not? Because the rule is a housekeeping rule, a convenience rule, and not a "right" or "privilege" rule. The organization is not exceeding its grant of power/authority by adopting a motion to permit Mr. X to get surface mailings instead of electronic mailings. An administrative rule which allows for X to be "automatic" does not necessarily imply that all other modes of achieving X to be verboten.)

[Joshua Katz]

An interesting point.  If I may impose further:  what if, instead of the wording you suggest, it said "Members who move out of state shall have the right to receive postal mails rather than emails" but contained no further language giving specific prohibitions?  Would you then say that members who do not move out of state, like the fellow with the missing computer, do not have this right?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

The closer the X factor [or, in the original post, "emeritus") comes to being a privilege or right, the more problematic the rule becomes.

Right now, as far as I know, "emeritus" is like a "commendation" or "courtesy resolution" --  a titular honor of no power, freely granted.

If "emeritus" means something more, then my analogy fails, as the X factor is more than just a good-will gesture.

 

[Guest William]

This is helpful. So if in a college organization, considering someone 'alumni' according to its rules (which is a right or privilege only for its members who are post-college) can only be done if a person leaves the school or otherwise graduates. The organization can't grant 'alumni' membership status to someone that hasn't a) graduated, or b-withdrawn from classes -- those 'certain characteristics' haven't been triggered.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Analogy:

It's kind of like "uncle".

Families often refer to unrelated family friends as "uncle". -- e.g., "Uncle Louis" might be dad's old college buddy, or dad's old army platoon corporal.  -- No blood relation.

Granting Mr. Louis the title of "uncle" violates no rule, and grants no favors. It is just a courtesy title, applicable to nothing more than avoiding the title "Mister" or "Sir".

***

Until we know what "emeritus" means (per the original poster), we must be open to the possibility that we are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

***

Example by analogy:

Note that RONR says that "honorary" members are NOT members. "Honorary membership" is subject to rescission. [ RONR page 463]. You cannot rescind real membership so easily.

RONR says that, while the title "honorary" must be authorized in the bylaws, the granting can be done rather willy-nilly, on the fly. And then rescinded!

Thus my caution.

Thus we await clarification.

 

[Guest J]

Hi again - So 'emeritus' membership in the union is more than a courtesy title according to the org bylaws. It's reserved for those who are no longer active in the union by virtue of a. professionally leaving the field or b. moving out of the area. So it's in a sense a right or privilege.

[Josh Martin]

On January 23, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Guest J said:

Hi again - So 'emeritus' membership in the union is more than a courtesy title according to the org bylaws. It's reserved for those who are no longer active in the union by virtue of a. professionally leaving the field or b. moving out of the area. So it's in a sense a right or privilege.

Then there is no doubt that this right or privilege may only be granted under the conditions specified in the bylaws.