grj Posted November 7, 2016 at 02:30 PM Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 at 02:30 PM During our BOD meeting it was stated that a part could be set aside for a good reason but for only one time. Huh? Where did that come from? It is not in our constitution. Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted November 7, 2016 at 02:55 PM Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 at 02:55 PM RONR does not have such a statement. Exactly what part was to be set aside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted November 7, 2016 at 03:19 PM Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 at 03:19 PM grj asked: "Where did that come from?" That is just the question to ask those who "stated"that it could happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grj Posted November 7, 2016 at 03:47 PM Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 at 03:47 PM The statement was made at our BOD Meeting that a part of our Constitution could be set aside for a good reason but only for one time. It is not stated in our Constitution that we can do that. The part wanting to be set aside was a defined Constitutional time for hosting our Business Meeting. Between March 1 - the week of April 15. It was stated by a BOD member as told to him by a former Secretary of our organization. Personally I think it is a crock but am I wrong? Is there a rule out there somewhere that states it can be applied to Constitutions? Why have one then? Appreciate bearing with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted November 7, 2016 at 03:49 PM Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 at 03:49 PM Just now, grj said: The statement was made at our BOD Meeting that a part of our Constitution could be set aside for a good reason but only for one time. It is not stated in our Constitution that we can do that. The part wanting to be set aside was a defined Constitutional time for hosting our Business Meeting. Between March 1 - the week of April 15. It was stated by a BOD member as told to him by a former Secretary of our organization. Personally I think it is a crock but am I wrong? Is there a rule out there somewhere that states it can be applied to Constitutions? Why have one then? Appreciate bearing with me. That rule is not suspendable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted November 7, 2016 at 04:04 PM Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 at 04:04 PM So this person is claiming, based on hearsay, that you can hold the meeting outside that window, but only once? What happens, in their view, if, 50 years after doing so, another good reason presents itself? Nothing can be done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grj Posted November 7, 2016 at 05:39 PM Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 at 05:39 PM Bottom line. One cannot suspend a part of the Constitution without amending it to make the change first. Correct? Yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted November 7, 2016 at 05:44 PM Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 at 05:44 PM 2 minutes ago, grj said: Bottom line. One cannot suspend a part of the Constitution without amending it to make the change first. Correct? Yes? Generally yes. There may be a provision or two which can be suspended (see RONR (11th ed.), p. 263, ll. 1-7), but in your specific case, the rule is not suspendable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 7, 2016 at 11:44 PM Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 at 11:44 PM 7 hours ago, grj said: The statement was made at our BOD Meeting that a part of our Constitution could be set aside for a good reason but only for one time. It is not stated in our Constitution that we can do that. The part wanting to be set aside was a defined Constitutional time for hosting our Business Meeting. Between March 1 - the week of April 15. It was stated by a BOD member as told to him by a former Secretary of our organization. Personally I think it is a crock but am I wrong? Is there a rule out there somewhere that states it can be applied to Constitutions? Why have one then? Appreciate bearing with me. It's a crock. You're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.