Jenn Posted April 8, 2019 at 09:38 PM Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 at 09:38 PM Does RONR reference “member at large”? What is the parliamentary definition for the term? In my limited experience, this classification was assigned to members who were not affiliated with a subordinate unit (chapter) due to geographical constraints. I’ve read bylaws that forbade this classification of membership were local units existed. As I study and learn more, I get the impression that my understanding is incorrect. Please advise and thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted April 8, 2019 at 09:53 PM Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 at 09:53 PM 12 minutes ago, Jenn said: Does RONR reference “member at large”? What is the parliamentary definition for the term? In my limited experience, this classification was assigned to members who were not affiliated with a subordinate unit (chapter) due to geographical constraints. I’ve read bylaws that forbade this classification of membership were local units existed. As I study and learn more, I get the impression that my understanding is incorrect. Please advise and thank you. This is something that would have to be defined in your own bylaws. That is where you need to look for your answer. It is rather common for some organizations, especially statewide and national organizations, to have different classes of members and "members at large", i.e., members who do not belong to a local affiliate, chapter or unit. It is not addressed in RONR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted April 8, 2019 at 09:55 PM Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 at 09:55 PM Nope. "Member at Large" isn't in the (pretty good) index. Nor does a text search find it. The term is common enough in bylaws but it purely a creature of those bylaws. Any "forbade this classification" rule would have to be in the bylaws, as well. Keep on studying! You are doing fine, so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted April 8, 2019 at 11:38 PM Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 at 11:38 PM (edited) 15 hours ago, Jenn said: Does RONR reference “member at large”? No. 15 hours ago, Jenn said: What is the parliamentary definition for the term? There is no standard parliamentary definition. In my experience, is generally used when members of a society (or board) are classified into divisions on some basis (which may or may not be geographical) and, in addition, there are members of the society (or board) who do not belong in these divisions, or who can belong to any division. A society might prescribe, for instance, that there are eleven members of its board - three elected from each of eight geographical divisions, and three who can be from any division, who are the members “at large.” In organizations which do not have such divisions for its board members, I sometimes see it used to refer to board members who do not hold a defined officer position (President, Vice President, etc.). 15 hours ago, Jenn said: In my limited experience, this classification was assigned to members who were not affiliated with a subordinate unit (chapter) due to geographical constraints. In my limited experience, this classification was assigned to members who were not affiliated with a subordinate unit (chapter) due to geographical constraints. No, this is definitely one possible meaning (albeit not the only meaning). Edited April 9, 2019 at 01:14 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 9, 2019 at 02:45 AM Report Share Posted April 9, 2019 at 02:45 AM (edited) The term does not appear anywhere in RONR. In my experience it is used to indicate a member that represents the entire general assembly rather than a specific subset of constituents. Edited April 9, 2019 at 02:45 AM by Gary Novosielski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts