No parliamentary authority?

[grayduck]

I just realized that our reference to Robert's Rules is only in terms of it being used for meetings. Here is the line in our Constitution:

"Robert's Rules of Order shall be used at all #### meetings where they are not inconsistent with the Constitution or the By-laws or any other special rules of order #### may adopt." (Section I, Item 9)

Is this improperly referenced? Does this mean that we have no true parliamentary authority? Does this mean that we cannot conduct any of our business according to RONR other than for meetings? Is there any consequence of not having this correctly referenced? Do we need to fix it to properly be registered with the state? Must an organization have a parliamentary authority in its Constitution?

If this is okay, how can I explain that we can still use all the other provisions of RONR, like Elections or Removal of Members, when some claim that RONR is just for our meetings because that is how it is written in our Constitution?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Ultimately it is up to your organization to interpret your constitution. 

Perhaps the constitution could be amended to include the recommended language.

[George Mervosh]

1) Not really, but here is the preferred language   http://www.robertsrules.com/authority.html

2) Such as?

3) It's too hard to predict such a thing

4) You'll have to ask a lawyer

5) No, but it would be crazy not to, and you seem to have one.

I don't sense the impending doom you are sensing.  Just amend the constitution via its procedure for amendment to use the wording suggested by RONR's authors.

[grayduck]

Thanks for the quick couple responses. Some members are trying to remove a member and think we don't need to follow RONR, (our Constitution is sorely lacking for this procedure and I want them to follow RONR) because they say it is "only for meetings". So they are interpreting this line as RONR having no say in any other issue than running meetings.

I have a sense of doom because I've been preaching how RONR is for other business against others who say it is "just for meetings" and I just realized that I missed it that our Constitution said "just for meetings" and they have been right. I feel totally humiliated and am looking for some face-saving support, if there is any to be had.

Otherwise I'll just go hide my head and call this all quits.

[Gary Novosielski]

But since decisions can only be made at meetings, i don't see this as an impediment to interpreting it your way.  

Removal will surely require, at a minimum, a meeting of some sort. RONR tells you what must occur at that meeting (or meetings).

But revise your bylaws ASAP anyway.

[grayduck]

Gary, thanks. I think that is the answer. You have helped me re-orient.

[Joshua Katz]

What does your Constitution say about discipline?  Regardless of the language for adopting RONR, if the Constitution has its own disciplinary procedure it supersedes that in RONR.  

 

[grayduck]

It has nothing about disciplining or removing members, only about removing officers. And that is only a couple lines. Just the basic criteria.

[Gary Novosielski]

Then the rules in RONR Chapter XX apply.  And fortunately, those rules involve having several different types of meetings, at which RONR will apply.