Chapter XX vs. Bylaw Discipline Provisions

[jstackpo]

If an association's bylaws contain at least some provisions relating to discipline, even though presumably nowhere near as complete or detailed as RONR Chap. XX) do those bylaw provisions completely supersede Chapter XX?

Or do the association's provision only supersede those portions of Chapter XX with which they are in conflict?

If it is the former case (completely supersede) the association will have to wing it when they run into procedural situations not covered by the provisions they do have.  This could lead to problems.

If it is the latter case (partially supersede) there could be all sorts of difficulties figuring out just which Chapter XX provisions were superseded, and which should be retained and followed, and what the consequences might be.  More problems.

Do we "experts" have any sort of consensus in this?  Is there another way of looking at this potential problem?

Edited August 29, 2016 by jstackpo
Minor clarification

[Hieu H. Huynh]

This question was asked in this thread.

[jstackpo]

Hmm... I wonder how many more times I'll ask the same question, before I am banned from the B-Board.

Thank you!

[Richard Brown]

Looking at the two previous threads that are linked to, I think we are far from being in agreement on this. J.J. and Josh Martin, for example, have taken contradictory positions regarding the need for a trial if the bylaws are silent on that point.

[Guest Gary c Tesser]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Looking at the two previous threads that are linked to, I think we are far from being in agreement on this. J.J. and Josh Martin, for example, have taken contradictory positions regarding the need for a trial if the bylaws are silent on that point.

 
I agree with the opinions of the estimable Mr Brown, as is often my pleasure:  I certainly don't think RONR resolves this question -- which, then, I'm (evidently, as well as is a bunch of parliamentarians, and probably another bunch of aspiring parliamentarians like me) not happy about; and that leaves us, unhappily ambivalently, looking at the bylaws, which, if they thankfully (if rarely) are explicit on this, leave you parliamentarians (and aspiring parliamentarians like me) off the hoop (less painful than the hook, what I meant, so what a providential typo that was) -- and which, if those bylaws are not explicit, leave for the assembly to decide, which of course is the pinnacle of human consciousness, self-government

[Guest Gary c Tesser]

10 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

This question was asked in this thread.

And, of course, the routine effusive thanks to Mr Huynh for his extraordinary research.

[Daniel H. Honemann]

20 hours ago, jstackpo said:

If an association's bylaws contain at least some provisions relating to discipline, even though presumably nowhere near as complete or detailed as RONR Chap. XX) do those bylaw provisions completely supersede Chapter XX?

Or do the association's provision only supersede those portions of Chapter XX with which they are in conflict?

If it is the former case (completely supersede) the association will have to wing it when they run into procedural situations not covered by the provisions they do have.  This could lead to problems.

If it is the latter case (partially supersede) there could be all sorts of difficulties figuring out just which Chapter XX provisions were superseded, and which should be retained and followed, and what the consequences might be.  More problems.

Do we "experts" have any sort of consensus in this?  Is there another way of looking at this potential problem?

 

So now we’re back again in the business of interpreting an organization’s bylaws without knowing exactly what they say or anything about the organization itself? Good luck with that.

“I think it depends on the specifics.”  (Josh Martin, in one of the previous threads.)

[J. J.]

On 8/29/2016 at 11:37 AM, Richard Brown said:

Looking at the two previous threads that are linked to, I think we are far from being in agreement on this. J.J. and Josh Martin, for example, have taken contradictory positions regarding the need for a trial if the bylaws are silent on that point.

I am not seeing too much daylight between Josh's position and my own.

In addition, a special rule, that would not conflict with the bylaws, could be adopted to regulate the process.