Suspend Rules

[wfd086]

In my organization according to our By-Laws, once you complete 25 years you are a Life Member.  There was a discussion about making someone who has not yet reached 25 years a life member.  A number of our members were asked if they would support it, my reply was no and I stated that the By-Laws were very specific about Life Membership.  There was then a comment about suspending the rules, which I do not believe is a possibilty.  There is no where in our by-laws that mentions suspending any rules.

The text from our By-laws on life membership is as follows:

Section 3 – Life Members – A member having completed twenty five (25) years of faithful service shall be awarded a twenty five-year service pin, and automatically become a Life Member. Life Members shall be excused from attending all meetings, fires, and drills, but shall retain all the privileges of active members, including the use of the uniform.

I believe that what I am looking for is in RONR on page 263 where it states "Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended - no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be - unless the particular specifically provides for its own suspension,or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described on page 17, lines 22-25."

Am I correct when I say we cannot suspend the rules to do what is being talked about?

[Richard Brown]

3 minutes ago, wfd086 said:

Am I correct when I say we cannot suspend the rules to do what is being talked about?

Yes, you are correct. Unless your bylaws provide otherwise, the only rules which can be suspended are rules that are in the nature of rules of order. Your provision on life membership is not a rule of order, but is essentially a qualification for membership as a life member. That is a provision that cannot be suspended.

[Joshua Katz]

8 minutes ago, wfd086 said:

I believe that what I am looking for is in RONR on page 263 where it states "Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended - no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be - unless the particular specifically provides for its own suspension,or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described on page 17, lines 22-25."

 Am I correct when I say we cannot suspend the rules to do what is being talked about?

The rule in question is not a rule of order, and does not provide for its own suspension. As a consequence, it cannot be suspended.

Edited November 24, 2018 at 02:21 AM by Joshua Katz

[Richard Brown]

26 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

The rule in question is not a rule of order, and does not provide for its own suspension. As a consequence, it cannot be suspended.

Isn't that what I said? Or were you typing at the same time I was? 

[Joshua Katz]

Just now, Richard Brown said:

Isn't that what I said? Or were you typing at the same time I was? 

I didn't see your response until I sent mine. I assume they crossed wires, so to speak.

[Atul Kapur]

3 hours ago, wfd086 said:

Life Members – A member having completed twenty five (25) years of faithful service shall be awarded a twenty five-year service pin, and automatically become a Life Member.

Someone may say that the word "automatically" implies that there are other ways to become a life member. The reply to that should be to say that the word is there to indicate that no further action is required by the organization (for example, there does not need to be a vote). If there was intended to be any other way to become a life member, other than completing 25 years of faithful service, it should be explicitly listed in the bylaws.

So I am agreeing with Mr. Brown and Mr. Katz but also trying to anticipate the next argument you may get. They cannot make someone a life member by suspending the bylaws. Creating a new way of making someone a life member would require an amendment to  the bylaws.

[Joshua Katz]

8 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Someone may say that the word "automatically" implies that there are other ways to become a life member. The reply to that should be to say that the word is there to indicate that no further action is required by the organization (for example, there does not need to be a vote). If there was intended to be any other way to become a life member, other than completing 25 years of faithful service, it should be explicitly listed in the bylaws.

 

I agree entirely, to be clear. It is a qualification for a sort of membership and would need to be explicit in the bylaws if there is another way. 

[Dan Honemann]

9 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Someone may say that the word "automatically" implies that there are other ways to become a life member. The reply to that should be to say that the word is there to indicate that no further action is required by the organization (for example, there does not need to be a vote). If there was intended to be any other way to become a life member, other than completing 25 years of faithful service, it should be explicitly listed in the bylaws.

I'm afraid that this is going beyond the question asked and into doubtful territory. 

 

[Atul Kapur]

5 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I'm afraid that this is going beyond the question asked and into doubtful territory. 

 

Interesting. Yes, we are getting into hypotheticals so you may not wish to respond, but I am curious about how you think a vote (or other procedures) would be allowed and still be in compliance with "automatically"?

I thought that if there was any wiggle room in this article it was with determining whether the person in question had provided "faithful" service, rather than "automatically."

[Dan Honemann]

Just now, Atul Kapur said:

Interesting. Yes, we are getting into hypotheticals so you may not wish to respond, but I am curious about how you think a vote (or other procedures) would be allowed and still be in compliance with "automatically"?

I thought that if there was any wiggle room in this article it was with determining whether the person in question had provided "faithful" service, rather than "automatically."

If a determination has to be made by the assembly that a person has provided 25 years of faithful service before he can become a life member, then that word "automatically" loses much of its significance. 

[Guest Zev]

8 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If a determination has to be made by the assembly...

I was under the impression that no determination was needed and that the inclusion of the word "automatically" had no significance whatsoever. Just overly wordy.

[Gary Novosielski]

22 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Isn't that what I said? Or were you typing at the same time I was? 

I'm tempted to.... nah.