Annual 3% Dues Increase voted on by membership

[J. J.]

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I personally continue to believe that the rule in the bylaws does not permit the assembly to adopt a rule which authorizes 3% annual dues increases indefinitely, but I acknowledge that there are reasonable differences of opinion on this question, and that it is ultimately a question for the society to decide.

 

Respectfully, the issue is on how this rule conflicts with the bylaws, with the presumption that the bylaws are otherwise silent on the issue. 

Can you elaborate on how this rule does conflict with this bylaw?  That is the problem that I, and I think a number of others, are having with the premise.

I would certainly agree that the 3% per year increase could be ended by following the process in the bylaws.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

Respectfully, the issue is on how this rule conflicts with the bylaws, with the presumption that the bylaws are otherwise silent on the issue. 

Can you elaborate on how this rule does conflict with this bylaw?  That is the problem that I, and I think a number of others, are having with the premise.

I would certainly agree that the 3% per year increase could be ended by following the process in the bylaws.

My interpretation of the statement that “The Board shall recommend the amount of annual Dues for each class of membership and shall transmit all proposed Dues changes, with a statement as to their necessity, to the Secretary.” is that “all proposed dues changes” means “all proposed dues changes,” not “all proposed dues changes except those which the society has exempted from this rule.” If there is an increase of 3% each year, it seems to me that each of these increases is a separate “change” which must be approved by the assembly under the procedures in this section. I do not view a 3% increase every year as a single “change” which was approved by the society once and continues until the society chooses to rescind it.

[Guest Zev]

Respectfully, please notice that John A did not indicate whether this society has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority or not. The possibility exists that it has not. But if it did I would have said

Quote

 Members cannot be assessed any additional payment aside from their dues unless it is provided for in the bylaws. (RONR 11th edition page 572 lines 2-4. My emphasis.)

and perhaps that would have solved the problem.

[J. J.]

37 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Respectfully, please notice that John A did not indicate whether this society has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority or not. The possibility exists that it has not. But if it did I would have said

and perhaps that would have solved the problem.

No, because the assembly is authorized to set annual dues. 

[Guest Zev]

Respectfully, I thought that the original problem was caused by the assembly setting dues by way of a standing rule rather than a bylaws amendment. Perhaps I am incorrect about that.

[John A]

47 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Respectfully, please notice that John A did not indicate whether this society has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority or not. The possibility exists that it has not. But if it did I would have said

and perhaps that would have solved the problem.

We do specify latest edition of RONR as the parliamentary authority.

3 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Respectfully, I thought that the original problem was caused by the assembly setting dues by way of a standing rule rather than a bylaws amendment. Perhaps I am incorrect about that.

I believe that was the original problem. It was mainly the word "change" in the bylaw that was concerning. As noted in this thread, some interpret the voted-on standing rule as setting increasing dues every year until they are changed again, and some would interpret a 3% increase as a change and that the standing rule is inconsistent with the bylaw.

[J. J.]

1 minute ago, Guest Zev said:

Respectfully, I thought that the original problem was caused by the assembly setting dues by way of a standing rule rather than a bylaws amendment. Perhaps I am incorrect about that.

Respectfully, I think you are.

The bylaw in question permits the assembly to establish dues by rule.  Even if RONR had a rule that said, "The amount of annual dues for the members must be included in the bylaws," which it doesn't¹, the bylaw would supersede it.  The bylaw authorize the method for the setting of the dues. 

 

¹RONR does  mandate that the right of memberships cannot be abridge by dropping a member for not paying dues, unless the bylaws so provide. 

[Richard Brown]

6 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Respectfully, I thought that the original problem was caused by the assembly setting dues by way of a standing rule rather than a bylaws amendment. Perhaps I am incorrect about that.

I interpret the bylaw provision the same way JJ does, namely, that the society sets dues by way of motion... standing rule or otherwise.  It does not require a bylaw amendment.   The only question is whether the standing rule provision for automatic 3 percent dues increases annually violates the bylaws.  In my opinion, it does not. The bylaws call for the membership to set the annual dues, not necessarily to set them annually.  I think they complied with the bylaws.

[J. J.]

4 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

My interpretation of the statement that “The Board shall recommend the amount of annual Dues for each class of membership and shall transmit all proposed Dues changes, with a statement as to their necessity, to the Secretary.” is that “all proposed dues changes” means “all proposed dues changes,” not “all proposed dues changes except those which the society has exempted from this rule.” If there is an increase of 3% each year, it seems to me that each of these increases is a separate “change” which must be approved by the assembly under the procedures in this section. I do not view a 3% increase every year as a single “change” which was approved by the society once and continues until the society chooses to rescind it.

First, thank you for the explanation.  I was not seeing it.

I would the change to be change from a parliamentary sense; the authorization for the dues for a specific year has not changed.  This has to do with if the motion setting the dues has been changed. 

There is nothing to suggest to me that the setting of the dues is limited to a year; a motion setting the dues will be in effect until rescinded or amended. 

[J. J.]

12 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I interpret the bylaw provision the same way JJ does, namely, that the society sets dues by way of motion... standing rule or otherwise.  It does not require a bylaw amendment.   The only question is whether the standing rule provision for automatic 3 percent dues increases annually violates the bylaws.  In my opinion, it does not. The bylaws call for the membership to set the annual dues, not necessarily to set them annually.  I think they complied with the bylaws.

I think that is it.  The difference of opinion is not if the assembly can set its dues by motion.  Both Richard and I agree on that point; the bylaws permit the setting of the dues by motion.  I think Josh is on the same page in that regard, but I don't want to put words int his mouth.  The difference of opinion is on if this specific motion constitutes a change in the dues.

This is the original rule:

23 hours ago, John A said:

Our organization has a section in the By-Laws that deal with dues, and here is an excerpt.

The Board shall recommend the amount of annual Dues for each class of membership and shall transmit all proposed Dues changes, with a statement as to their necessity, to the Secretary. The Secretary shall distribute the proposal and statement of necessity to all Members and Emeritus Members at least 60 days before the Annual Business Meeting and will facilitate discussion and submission of comments on the proposal from the membership prior to and at the Annual Business Meeting. The Secretary shall summarize the comments received. The proposed change together with the statement of necessity and the summary of comments shall be presented to the Members and Emeritus Members in good standing for final approval or rejection by secret vote.

The question is if a motion setting the dues as being increased by a fix percentage constitutes a "change."

This bylaw does not require that the dues be set on a yearly basis.  A motion "That the annual dues be set at $25," would be in force year after year, until it is subject to rescind/amend something previously adopted.

The bylaw does not specify that dues be expressed in a specific monetary amount.  A motion could be adopted "that the annual dues be set at $25.00 in Canadian money."  It could be motion " "that the annual dues be set at 2 troy ounces of 0.999 fine silver."  That motion would not change, though the value of those things, measured in American dollars, would probably fluctuate over time.

Now, we come to a motion that says that the dues shall be based on a 3% increase, each year, on that current year's dues.  That is not a change in the motion from year to year.  The board recommends, under this rule; their recommendation is 3% of what the members are paying in a current year, a fixed amount.  It does not specify a specific dollar, but there is no requirement for a specific dollar amount.  There is no requirement that the dues be set on an annual basis, so that not can be a ground for declaring it void. 

The "proposed change" is that the dues be a 3% increase above the current year, each year.  That was the "proposed change."   No additional motion is needed to continue the effect of that "proposed change" of 3%.  The rule applies to the changing of the dues, not to the dollar amount, in US dollars, of the dues.  The dues proposal need not be expressed in dollars to be valid. 

 

[Josh Martin]

19 hours ago, J. J. said:

There is nothing to suggest to me that the setting of the dues is limited to a year; a motion setting the dues will be in effect until rescinded or amended. 

Yes, I have no doubt of that. If the society had voted to increase the dues by 3%, then the dues would increase by 3%, and then would remain at that amount until the assembly again agreed to change the dues. That is a single change in the dues.

In this case, however, it appears that the assembly voted on a 3% increase in the dues (a change in the dues) and further provided that changes of up to 3% per year (each of which, it seems to me, is a change in the dues) may be made in the future without further approval from the assembly. In my view, this is not consistent with the rule in the bylaws.

Edited April 27, 2019 at 04:24 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

35 minutes ago, J. J. said:

This bylaw does not require that the dues be set on a yearly basis.  A motion "That the annual dues be set at $25," would be in force year after year, until it is subject to rescind/amend something previously adopted.

 

Agreed.

35 minutes ago, J. J. said:

 The bylaw does not specify that dues be expressed in a specific monetary amount.  A motion could be adopted "that the annual dues be set at $25.00 in Canadian money."  It could be motion " "that the annual dues be set at 2 troy ounces of 0.999 fine silver."  That motion would not change, though the value of those things, measured in American dollars, would probably fluctuate over time.

 

Agreed.

35 minutes ago, J. J. said:

 Now, we come to a motion that says that the dues shall be based on a 3% increase, each year, on that current year's dues.  That is not a change in the motion from year to year.  The board recommends, under this rule; their recommendation is 3% of what the members are paying in a current year, a fixed amount.  It does not specify a specific dollar, but there is no requirement for a specific dollar amount.  There is no requirement that the dues be set on an annual basis, so that not can be a ground for declaring it void. 

 

There is a requirement that the assembly approve, via a specified procedure, of any change in the dues. Naturally, that does not require the assembly to approve a non-change in the dues. But, as you say - "their recommendation is 3% of what the members are paying in a current year" - i.e. it is proposed that each year the dues go up by 3%, which is, if I am using the words correctly, a change. So that recommendation needs to be approved by the assembly, via the specified procedure.

I agree with your prior comments that no bylaw change is needed to raise the dues each year by 3% - what is needed is an annual vote (which might not pass). Where the bylaw change discussion came into it, if I'm following, is the comment that if the assembly wishes to approve a 3% annual change once and be done (i.e. set it and forget it), a bylaw change could be made to allow that. So I think the disagreement is over whether the assembly may decide to change the dues annually - i.e. decide it once but do it annually, not over whether the dues can be changed at all. At least, as far as I can see.

[Atul Kapur]

I thank everyone for refining and clarifying the disagreement while i was away. I still agree with J.J. and Mr. Brown. I, respectfully, think Mssrs. Katz and Martin are reading something into the bylaws that isn't there, specifically this requirement:

27 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

no bylaw change is needed to raise the dues each year by 3% - what is needed is an annual vote

I agree with all that 

27 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

There is a requirement that the assembly approve, via a specified procedure, of any change in the dues

But I see nothing in the bylaws that mandate that each change has to follow the "specified procedure" separately, just that all the changes have to follow the specified procedure. They did follow it.

Are we at the "respectfully agree to disagree" stage?

 

Edited April 26, 2019 at 11:19 PM by Atul Kapur

[Joshua Katz]

4 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

Are we at the "respectfully agree to disagree" stage?

 

 

2 hours ago, J. J. said:

Respectfully, I think you are.

 

 

7 hours ago, J. J. said:

Respectfully, the issue is on how this rule conflicts with the bylaws, with the presumption that the bylaws are otherwise silent on the issue. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Respectfully, please notice that John A did not indicate whether this society has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority or not. The possibility exists that it has not. But if it did I would have said

Quote

 

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Respectfully, I thought that the original problem was caused by the assembly setting dues by way of a standing rule rather than a bylaws amendment. Perhaps I am incorrect about that.

It seems to me that we are, yes. There was some confusion, it seemed, as to where we disagreed and where everyone was. I think that's all clear now, and we're done - and haven't provided all that much guidance, except on the point where (I think) we all agree: this is a matter of bylaw interpretation for OP's organization.

[J. J.]

7 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

I agree with your prior comments that no bylaw change is needed to raise the dues each year by 3% - what is needed is an annual vote (which might not pass). Where the bylaw change discussion came into it, if I'm following, is the comment that if the assembly wishes to approve a 3% annual change once and be done (i.e. set it and forget it), a bylaw change could be made to allow that. So I think the disagreement is over whether the assembly may decide to change the dues annually - i.e. decide it once but do it annually, not over whether the dues can be changed at all. At least, as far as I can see.

There is, at least from a parliamentary standpoint, a difference between the dues increasing, and a motion to increase the dues. 

The proposal, effectively a motion, is what needs the notice.  That proposal may trigger a different dues amount at some point, but there is no requirement that the dues themselves be approved.  Only the proposal is what comes before the assembly.  A motion, "That the annual dues be set at $100 per year" is in order, however, so are other forms.

This is a hypothetical proposal, "That in 2020, the annual dues be set at $50.00 and that the dues be raised to $60.00 in 2021."  In 2020, the dues are $50.00.  In 2021 the dues are $60.00.  The dues have changed.  The proposal, however, has not changed.  It is still "That in 2020, the annual dues be set at $50.00 and that the dues be raised to $60.00 in 2021."  That proposal does not violate the bylaws, because no requirement that the dues be set annually.  I cannot find a reason for finding that motion somehow improper. 

The framers of the bylaws could have easily written something into these bylaws that would require a yearly approval of dues.  They could have referred to the "amount of the dues" being voted on, instead of the "proposed change."  They didn't do either.

[J. J.]

8 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

 

It seems to me that we are, yes. There was some confusion, it seemed, as to where we disagreed and where everyone was. I think that's all clear now, and we're done - and haven't provided all that much guidance, except on the point where (I think) we all agree: this is a matter of bylaw interpretation for OP's organization.

I think we are too the point of trying to clarify what the question is, and what the disagreements are.

[Joshua Katz]

2 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I think we are too the point of trying to clarify what the question is, and what the disagreements are.

You don't think we've done that? Okay, in that case:

4 minutes ago, J. J. said:

There is, at least from a parliamentary standpoint, a difference between the dues increasing, and a motion to increase the dues. 

 

I agree that these are two different things.

4 minutes ago, J. J. said:

The proposal, effectively a motion, is what needs the notice. 

Yes, but the bylaws state that each change, in effect, requires a motion. Or, likely, that's the question we're disagreeing about.

 

5 minutes ago, J. J. said:

A motion, "That the annual dues be set at $100 per year" is in order, however, so are other forms.

Yes, such a motion is in order, and so are other forms. For example, it would be in order to move to increase the dues by 3%.

6 minutes ago, J. J. said:

This is a hypothetical proposal, "That in 2020, the annual dues be set at $50.00 and that the dues be raised to $60.00 in 2021."  In 2020, the dues are $50.00.  In 2021 the dues are $60.00.  The dues have changed.  The proposal, however, has not changed.  It is still "That in 2020, the annual dues be set at $50.00 and that the dues be raised to $60.00 in 2021."  That proposal does not violate the bylaws, because no requirement that the dues be set annually.  I cannot find a reason for finding that motion somehow improper. 

Well, perhaps that's where we disagree, then. I would see the second part of that motion as having no effect. But suppose I agreed with you that this compound motion works - would it follow that a motion prescribing changes indefinitely is also in order? Do we assume the axiom of induction to apply? I see no reason to assume that. Perhaps a motion can go out X years, but, I maintain at least, it cannot go out infinitely many years.

But that's all supposition, because I think each change requires its own motion.

8 minutes ago, J. J. said:

The framers of the bylaws could have easily written something into these bylaws that would require a yearly approval of dues.  They could have referred to the "amount of the dues" being voted on, instead of the "proposed change."  They didn't do either.

They could have, but no one (at least, not me, that much I'm sure of) is saying the amount of dues needs to be reaffirmed annually absent a change, so the first is not what I am arguing for. I'm not sure where you're going with the second language suggestion.

Do you agree, though, that this is a matter of bylaw interpretation, as Mr. Brown asked me a few hundred posts ago?

[J. J.]

1 minute ago, Joshua Katz said:

Well, perhaps that's where we disagree, then. I would see the second part of that motion as having no effect. But suppose I agreed with you that this compound motion works - would it follow that a motion prescribing changes indefinitely is also in order? Do we assume the axiom of induction to apply? I see no reason to assume that. Perhaps a motion can go out X years, but, I maintain at least, it cannot go out infinitely many years.

 

Do you agree, though, that this is a matter of bylaw interpretation, as Mr. Brown asked me a few hundred posts ago?

Assume that the motion "that the annual dues be set at $25," is properly adopted at the 2010 annual meeting.  The motion was neither rescinded or amended.  In 2019, the annual dues are $25.00.  There is nothing in the quoted bylaw that indicates that the effect of the motion has ended.  RONR indicates that the motion remains in force (pp. 111-12; 251 b.). Further, attempting to make a motion "that the annual dues be set at $25," is out of order (p. 104, ll. 24-31); it would a reaffirmation.  Yes, that motion can remain in effect indefinitely for may years, if not many decades. 

I do not agree with Mr. Brown that this is a bylaw interpretation question.  I do agree with Dr. Kapur that it is an attempt at "reading something into the bylaws that isn't there."  There is no requirement either in the quoted bylaw, in RONR, or in the motion as described,² that would provide a "sunset" for these motions.  

 

 

² I will note that any of these sources could provide for the termination of the motion, without needing additional action by the assembly. 

[Joshua Katz]

1 minute ago, J. J. said:

Assume that the motion "that the annual dues be set at $25," is properly adopted at the 2010 annual meeting.  The motion was neither rescinded or amended.  In 2019, the annual dues are $25.00.  There is nothing in the quoted bylaw that indicates that the effect of the motion has ended.  RONR indicates that the motion remains in force (pp. 111-12; 251 b.). Further, attempting to make a motion "that the annual dues be set at $25," is out of order (p. 104, ll. 24-31); it would a reaffirmation.  Yes, that motion can remain in effect indefinitely for may years, if not many decades. 

I agree. But what's that got to do with what we're talking about?

1 minute ago, J. J. said:

I do not agree with Mr. Brown that this is a bylaw interpretation question.  I do agree with Dr. Kapur that it is an attempt at "reading something into the bylaws that isn't there."  There is no requirement either in the quoted bylaw, in RONR, or in the motion as described,² that would provide a "sunset" for these motions.  

 

Who is saying that motions setting the dues sunset? I agree that if the dues are set, and not changed, then no motion is needed to not change them. 

[J. J.]

4 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

I agree. But what's that got to do with what we're talking about?

 

Everything!  The motion remains in effect.  A 3% increase in dues per year remains in effect.  

Any proposal remains in effect until it is repealed.  The proposal is "that the annual dues be increased by 3% above what they are in the previous year," presumably. 

[Joshua Katz]

3 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Everything!  The motion remains in effect.  A 3% increase in dues per year remains in effect.  

 

I suppose that yes, an example everyone agrees on has everything to do with one everyone does not agree on if you just slide from one to the other. Unfortunately, the bylaws specify precisely what needs approval: changes. If the dues are set, they are not changing; when they are changed, and each time they are changed, that's a change.

Are you convinced yet that we're not going to convince each other?

[J. J.]

1 minute ago, Joshua Katz said:

I suppose that yes, an example everyone agrees on has everything to do with one everyone does not agree on if you just slide from one to the other. Unfortunately, the bylaws specify precisely what needs approval: changes. If the dues are set, they are not changing; when they are changed, and each time they are changed, that's a change.

Are you convinced yet that we're not going to convince each other?

The bylaws do specifically state what needs to be approved, the "proposed change."   It does not say **the proposed dues."

The proposed change is: " "That in 2020, the annual dues be set at $50.00 and that the dues be raised to $60.00 in 2021."   It is not **that the annual dues be set at $60.00 in 2021.**  When the dues go up in 2021, there has been no modification to the proposed change.

[Joshua Katz]

2 minutes ago, J. J. said:

The bylaws do specifically state what needs to be approved, the "proposed change."   It does not say **the proposed dues."

 

Agreed. But the proposed change to the dues, obviously, not to anything.

3 minutes ago, J. J. said:

 The proposed change is: " "That in 2020, the annual dues be set at $50.00 and that the dues be raised to $60.00 in 2021."   It is not **that the annual dues be set at $60.00 in 2021.**  When the dues go up in 2021, there has been no modification to the proposed change.

But it says "each change." If all it said was that in one year it is 50, and in the next year it is changed, then yes, that's one change. But the standing rule in this case changes them every year, so it's X-1 changes every X years.

[J. J.]

41 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Agreed. But the proposed change to the dues, obviously, not to anything.

But it says "each change." If all it said was that in one year it is 50, and in the next year it is changed, then yes, that's one change. But the standing rule in this case changes them every year, so it's X-1 changes every X years.

It isn't the **proposed dues.** It says the "proposed change."  Two different things.  The "proposed change" is 3% per year. 

Edited April 27, 2019 at 01:29 AM by J. J.

[Joshua Katz]

14 minutes ago, J. J. said:

It says the "proposed change."

The proposed change...to what?