Bylaws: local vs state vs national in a parent organization

[Guest NYRW]

If a national organization has in its bylaws that members of the nominating committee cannot be candidates, does the state and local organizations who are  subordinate members, have to write that provision in their bylaws?  The national bylaws read that the state and local clubs's bylaws cannot be in conflict with the national organization. Would this be a conflict not to mirror the national bylaws?

[Guest PRP]

In my opinion, this is not a conflict with the national bylaws.  Generally, conflict  refers to the mission of the national organization.  Does the national bylaws require the subordinate organizations to have the exact same bylaws?  If not then, the subordinate organizations may have committee structures that are different from the national.

As to the Nominating Committee, RONR 11th Edition, page 433 "Members of the nominating committee are not barred from becoming nominees for office themselves. To make such a requirement would mean, first, that service on the nominating committee carried a penalty by depriving its members of one of their privileges; and second, that appointment or election to the nominating committee could be used to prevent a member from becoming a nominee. "  

The national organization is doing a disservice to its members by prohibiting them from becoming candidates, and taking their rights away.

[Joshua Katz]

It depends on the wording of the provision. Does the wording clearly refer to state and local organizations, or is it about the national organization? State and local organizations may not have provisions in their bylaws inconsistent with the parent organization's bylaws where those bylaws apply to the state and local organization. If it does clearly apply to the local and state organizations, such as "The national organization, and all its affiliates, shall have a nominating committee, whose members shall not...", then the answer is still that you don't need to write the provision into the state or local bylaws, because it applies automatically. 

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Guest NYRW said:

If a national organization has in its bylaws that members of the nominating committee cannot be candidates, does the state and local organizations who are  subordinate members, have to write that provision in their bylaws?  The national bylaws read that the state and local clubs's bylaws cannot be in conflict with the national organization. Would this be a conflict not to mirror the national bylaws?

As Mr. Katz pointed out, it depends on the exact wording of the bylaws. However, based on the information you have provided, it appears to me that the quoted provision applies only to the National Organization and that state and local affiliates are free to adopt their own provisions regarding their own nominating committees. I do not interpret the quoted provision as requiring that the state and local affiliates be bound by that provision. Ultimately, however, it is up to the organization itself to interpret its own bylaws.

The bylaws need to be looked at as a whole, as there might be other applicable provisions and it may be possible to determine the intent based on a reading of the complete set of bylaws.

[Nathan Zook]

The relationship between the bylaws of a subordinate body to its superior tend to be...complex.  I find it curious that the usual choruses of "we don't interpret bylaws" and/or "please post the exact words of the relevant rules, do not paraphrase" has not arisen, because in my experience, this is a case where the superior organization most definitely will have to make the call.

You really need to contact the superior organization (in particular, its parliamentarian) for information regarding how this rule has been interpreted by the superior body--if there is any history of contention at all, you can expect that this issue will have been raised already.

But no, the general principle is that if a rule is specified as applying in one case, then it does not apply in others.  Therefore, if the rule mentions a limitation for the superior body, then the rule does not limit the inferior one.  One beautiful example of this is that the First Amendment to the US constitution prohibiting congress from establishing a religion was easily passed while multiple states had established churches!  It was only after the Supreme Court developed the doctrine of incorporation that this prohibition was extended to the states.

 

[Joshua Katz]

6 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

I find it curious that the usual choruses of "we don't interpret bylaws" and/or "please post the exact words of the relevant rules, do not paraphrase" has not arisen, because in my experience, this is a case where the superior organization most definitely will have to make the call.

None of us has made an effort to interpret the bylaws, and since we aren't, we don't need the precise wording. I, at least, stated a general rule for when bylaws are applicable to child units and when they are not, thereby leaving it to the organization to determine which case they were in.