Who Interprets An Organizations Bylaws

[Willie Watson]

 

Here is a portion of what is written in our bylaws as part of the function of our bylaws committee (the bylaws committee is a standing committee):

“Consultation with a professional parliamentarian is advised when major changes are proposed or an interpretation of the current bylaws by the Bylaws Committee is challenged by a member or members.”

A friend of mines is arguing that the assembly always decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws.  My argument is that this is not true for our assembly because even the assembly gets its power from the bylaws, and the above statement takes that power from the assembly and places it in the hands of the bylaw committee. Can you please give me your thoughts.

[jstackpo]

It doesn't really say, does it?  It isn't clear what the next step(s) will be if a member "challenges" and the professional parliamentarian offers his opinion.   So it seems to be a matter of (wait for it...) bylaws interpretation.  And away you go, off to the races.

I strongly urge you to figure out what you really mean and adopt an amendment to the bylaws that is much more clear.  See p. 588ff. for some "interpretation" guidance.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Who can amend your bylaws?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

7 minutes ago, Willie Watson said:

 Can you please give me your thoughts.

Let me put the rule into a logical format.
 

Quote

 

     Action X

     "is advised when"

     Action Y  OR  Action Z

 

 

Now, with the elements split up into bite-sized chunks, let's investigate.

You said:
 

Quote

 

>> . . . the above statement -- namely, [X WHEN (Y = TRUE) OR WHEN  (Z = TRUE)]

>> takes that power [of interpretation] [away] from the assembly

>> and places it in the hands of the bylaw committee.

 

I reply.

This cannot be an accurate interpretation of the rule.

That particular statement empowers no one.

The rule is a inverted IF/THEN statement. To wit:
 

Quote

 

• IF (Y OR Z)

• THEN X.

 

Let's eliminate the conjunction OR and rephrase the rule two separate IF/THEN statements.

Let me do exactly that.
 

Quote

 

R1.) IF major changes are are proposed, THEN consultation with a parliamentarian is advised.

R2.) IF an interpretation of the current bylaws by the bylaws committee is challenged by a member or members, THEN consultation with a parliamentarian is advised.

 

Note that R1 and R2 combined are exactly like your original rule, only without a conjunction to tie them together.

Agree?

***

Thus my caution to you: "Do not assume that R2 is a granting of authority."

R2 is a hypothetical circumstance which triggers an action (namely, the action called "... consultation ...").

***

Test it out.

Insert a different noun (i.e., insert a different trigger), and see if your interpretation holds.

Example:
 

Quote

 

IF the president usurps outrageous power and engages in egregious actions unbecoming an officer,

THEN consultation with a parliamentarian is advised.

 

I will rephrase the above example's "trigger" and "result" to match your original format's order.

Quote

"Consultation with a professional parliamentarian

is advised when

the president usurps outrageous power and engages in egregious actions unbecoming an officer."

The $64 Quiz question:

Q. Is my above example a true "granting of power" to the president to actually do those things (viz. to usurp power? to engage in egregious action?)

I don't think so.

The rule instead is an advisory warning against something.

***

Thus your interpretation is not logically valid.

Q.E.D.

[Dan Honemann]

11 hours ago, Willie Watson said:

 

Here is a portion of what is written in our bylaws as part of the function of our bylaws committee (the bylaws committee is a standing committee):

 

“Consultation with a professional parliamentarian is advised when major changes are proposed or an interpretation of the current bylaws by the Bylaws Committee is challenged by a member or members.”

 

A friend of mines is arguing that the assembly always decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws.  My argument is that this is not true for our assembly because even the assembly gets its power from the bylaws, and the above statement takes that power from the assembly and places it in the hands of the bylaw committee. Can you please give me your thoughts.

 

Based solely upon what you have posted (a reading of your bylaws in their entirety is necessary in order to truly understand them), I would agree with you that the language which you have quoted indicates that one of the functions of your bylaws committee is to construe the provisions of your bylaws (and then, hopefully, to recommend amendments to remove any ambiguity), but this language falls far short of vesting the power to interpret the provisions of your bylaws exclusively in your bylaws committee, which is the sort of language needed in order to divest your membership's assembly of its overriding authority in this regard (RONR, 11th ed., p. 483, ll. 6-13).