Special meeting

[Elaine A]

We are having a Special Meeting to hold Election of officers and Directors. 1. Can we stipulate that this meeting is only for members in good standing? At a recent AGM there were a number of people who were there to observe and we want to ensure that only members in good standing vote. There is nothing in our constitution to address this. Thank you.

[Josh Martin]

2 minutes ago, Elaine A said:

We are having a Special Meeting to hold Election of officers and Directors. 1. Can we stipulate that this meeting is only for members in good standing? At a recent AGM there were a number of people who were there to observe and we want to ensure that only members in good standing vote. There is nothing in our constitution to address this. Thank you.

The assembly may certainly prohibit non-members from attending. If by "members in good standing" you mean members whose rights are not under disciplinary suspension, then yes, members who are not "in good standing" may also be prohibited from attending. If you mean something else by "members in good standing," please clarify.

[Elaine A]

14 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

The assembly may certainly prohibit non-members from attending. If by "members in good standing" you mean members whose rights are not under disciplinary suspension, then yes, members who are not "in good standing" may also be prohibited from attending. If you mean something else by "members in good standing," please clarify.

 

14 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

The assembly may certainly prohibit non-members from attending. If by "members in good standing" you mean members whose rights are not under disciplinary suspension, then yes, members who are not "in good standing" may also be prohibited from attending. If you mean something else by "members in good standing," please clarify.

Members in good standing are simply members who are paid up two weeks before the meeting and are thus eligible to vote. At an AGM two weeks ago  a constitution was sent out to members the night before with a number of changes. For example, one of our by laws state that a member must be in good standing( paid up) at least two weeks before the AGM. The revised and bogus constitution said one week. Members picked up on the changes right away.

[Gary c Tesser]

Elaine A,

Mr Martin has told you (in accurate summary, AFAIK) what RONR says "good standing" means (I think it's in a footnote around page 5; I would check for you but my fingers are way over here on the keyboard and my book is way over there under my right elbow; you might say, OK, you soi-disant (word of the day) Gary person, you're left-handed (which you probably didn't know, but might have guessed by now, if not demonstrably from my linguistic inclinations not to mention my eccentric typography) so it's easy as 3.14 (easy as pi, get it?) to reach over there with your facile left hand and pluck that book out from under that right elbow, although what then will that right elbow lean on? ) -- but you know what?  Pfui.  Elaine A, why don't you just look in your own darn copy.  Unless you don't have one. In which case, that's a deficit that you should remedy ASAP; but, if in the meantime, if you want to know, then please write back and I, or someone else (like, say, my fiancee or doppelganger,, Nancy N, after sundown) will very probably tell you.  But:  we here, the regular (if somewhat irregular, some would say daffy) habitue's [sp?] of The World's Premier Internet Parliamentary Forum (or so I keep saying, with lamentably nugatory (or maybe "negligible" I forget which is which ) backup (or support, I forget which is which)) are supposed to discuss what Robert's Rules says, maybe what we think it means, but we can't tell you what your own group's rules mean:  that's for your group itself to determine.  (Of course, if you want to, you can hire a parliamentarian, or even an aspiring parliamentarian like me or Richard Brown, although he's a lawyer, but I don't hold that against him, unlike his right leg, which he habitually holds against his left leg, like lawyers typically tediously do, because law school indoctrinated them to think that that's what legs are for -- Great Steaming Cobnuts, dear Elaine A., do you know how much money they spend to go to law school, and that's what they learn, to rub their legs together?  LIke Boy Scouts trying to light a fire with sticks?  Except that Boy Scouts have to trudge out into the woods to find sticks to rub together but lawyers often find legs inside their pants but Good Heavens, I'm certainly not gonna look, because interpreting bylaws is something that trained, experienced, veteran parliamentarians are supposed to be good at.  You can see from my ID on the post that I ask for $4.50 and hour, but I can deal, but probably you can get a better offer from Mr Brown or Mr Honemann or Mr Balch or some other lawyer.)

Now I'm wondering what Elaine A. was asking about.

[Richard Brown]

Elaine, in order for members whose dues are not current to be denied the right to vote, that provision will have to be specifically included in your bylaws.  RONR says explicitly that, unless you have a bylaw provision to the contrary, being delinquent in the payment of dues is not grounds for denying a member the right to vote.   If your bylaws say explicitly that only members in good standing can vote and if they also define members in good standing as members whose dues are current, they you are probably covered on that point.