Article IX Principles of Interpretation

[Guest Jodi]

Scenario: 

New Candidate Member wants to waive the 6 month waiting period currently in place for all members prior to becoming a Full Member.  Additionally, this person has not attended any member meetings since becoming a Candidate member.  This person’s argument is that the policy in place conflicts with our bylaws.

This is in the by-laws:

Member. This class of membership is open to any candidate member, 18 years of age and older, who has attended at least two member meetings, assisted with at least two club functions, has two members as sponsors and has shown an active interest in promoting the goals and objectives of the club.

This is on the website:

“You may become a full member of DKC six to twelve months after becoming a Candidate Member, after fulfilling service requirements and attending meetings. Please fill out the Regular Membership application and submit.”

This is on the Full Membership application:

“I/we have been a member candidate of the Durham Kennel Club for the required six months, and I/we would like to be considered for full Membership.”

Board interpretation: 

The 6 month wait period has been in effect for the Club for years. The Board agreed the wait period is a precedent even if not explicitly stated in the bylaws.  The Board also agrees that adhering to our established customs is part of fulfilling service requirements and represents an example of promoting the goals and objectives of the club.

 

Robert’s Rules comments: (11th edition paperback)

Pages 588-589 Principle of Interpretation #4: Some argue that this says we cannot add anything to that same class.  What does that mean in this scenario?  What is the definition of “class”?  The Board interprets that we are not adding to that class, but we are clarifying our current process that demonstrates “…has shown an active interest in promoting the goals and objectives of the club”.

Page 588 Principle of Interpretation #1:  The Board is interpreting the meaning of it’s by-laws and there is not a conflict.  The board agrees if the by-laws stated, for example, no waiting period is required, or a 2 month waiting period is required, then there would be a conflict in requiring a 6 month waiting period.

Page 10  Rules of an Assembly or Organization: Ref lines 21- 25) “…an assembly or society is free to adopt any rules it may wish (even rules deviating from parliamentary law) provided that, in the procedure of adopting them, it conforms to parliamentary law or its own existing rules.”  The Board interprets this that the 6 month waiting period is a long standing custom which conforms to parliamentary law described on page 19 under “Custom”.

[Joshua Katz]

I don't see why any of this matters to resolve your issue.  Nothing could be more explicit than that a person must attend 2 member meetings prior to becoming a member, and this person has not done so.  

As to the rest, I don't think your custom argument works standing alone, because custom falls to the ground in the face of a point of order.  It is claimed that your custom violates your rules, so just saying it is a custom is not sufficient.  As to the 6 month rule being an 'interpretation' of your bylaws, only your organization can interpret your bylaws, but interpretation only enters into it when the bylaws are ambiguous.  While the rule in your bylaws is vague (and should be amended), I don't think there's any reasonable interpretation of "shown an active interest" that means "6 month wait."  It is not ambiguous in that regard, and an interpretation of it as meaning 6 months is not within the realm of the possible, in my view.  

What it says on your website and application form is immaterial, since qualifications for membership must appear in the bylaws, and, as some have argued, a listing of qualifications excludes the imposition of further qualifications.  The reason this appears on your website and application form, and has been followed until now, is apparently that no one has pointed out that it flies in the face of your bylaws.  If your organization wants people to wait 6 months to join, it should amend the bylaws.

As to your specific arguments:

#4:  I say your board is wrong, and you cannot interpret the bylaw language as meaning "6 months," hence the board has purported to create a new qualification, which is not permitted.

#1:  Irrelevant.  Furthermore, your organization is the ultimate authority on interpreting your bylaws, not your board, and the proper body to resolve the issue is the membership at a meeting.

Your final argument:  You have adopted a custom in contradiction to your own rules.  The passage you cites specifies that customs contradicting your rules fall in the face of an objection.  Based on this argument, though, we can conclude that your board never (presumably) formally adopted any policies on the matter.

However, there is one additional issue.  Such questions are not free-floating inquiries, they need to be raised as points of order at a meeting.  This person, whatever your bylaws say, has been (perhaps unjustly) denied membership, and, as a non-member, cannot raise a point of order at a membership meeting - particularly since, as noted, he hasn't attended any.  He'll need to get a member to raise a point of order.  

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Joshua Katz. The policy that requires a 6-month waiting period conflicts with the bylaws. I also agree with Joshua's answers to your specific questions and to the point he made in his final paragraph.

[J. J.]

First, if any of those sources conflict with the bylaws, the bylaws prevail. 

The bylaws give criteria for membership for this class of membership, and under #4 pp. 589-90, no from a lower source  (at least internal to the society), can create criteria for membership. 

53 minutes ago, Guest Jodi said:

 

Scenario: 

New Candidate Member wants to waive the 6 month waiting period currently in place for all members prior to becoming a Full Member.  Additionally, this person has not attended any member meetings since becoming a Candidate member.  This person’s argument is that the policy in place conflicts with our bylaws.

This is in the by-laws:

Member. This class of membership is open to any candidate member, 18 years of age and older, who has attended at least two member meetings, assisted with at least two club functions, has two members as sponsors and has shown an active interest in promoting the goals and objectives of the club.

 

The person is eligible under that bylaw,  if he meets the qualifications for being a member.

In order to meet the criteria for being a member of this class, the quotes lists criteria, one of those is that the potential member has "attended at least two member meetings."  You have indicated that he has not attended any meetings since becoming a candidate member. 

If the potential member has not attended two meetings in his life, he clearly is not eligible to be a member; there is no ambiguity in that.

There is ambiguity on if this criteria means that the potential member must have attended the 2 meetings while his status was that of a candidate member or if he had to attend 2 meetings at some point in his life.  That is ambiguous, and needs to be interpreted (p. 588, #1).  

You might be able to clear up that ambiguity by looking at the rest of the bylaws.  It is up to the assembly to determine which interpretation should prevail.  Either, based on the information provided, would be a reasonable interpretation.

 

Edited February 2, 2018 at 05:05 PM by J. J.

[J. J.]

43 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

I don't see why any of this matters to resolve your issue.  Nothing could be more explicit than that a person must attend 2 member meetings prior to becoming a member, and this person has not done so.  

 

I think you missed something.   

Jodi made no claim that this person had not attended two meetings.  The exact quote is:

Additionally, this person has not attended any member meetings since becoming a Candidate member. 

 

(Emphasis added)

Edited February 2, 2018 at 05:19 PM by J. J.