Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
Jenn

Member at Large

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Josh Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Gary Novosielski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...