Annual 3% Dues Increase voted on by membership

[J. J.]

9 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

The proposed change...to what?

From the former amount to 3% per year.

A 3% increase in dues changes the dues.  The proposal "to increase the dues 3% per year," once adopted, does not change. 

Edited April 27, 2019 at 01:31 AM by J. J.

[Joshua Katz]

2 minutes ago, J. J. said:

From the former amount to 3% per year.

That doesn't even make sense. 3% of what per year? The dues are not 3% per year, they are going up (i.e. changing) by 3%. I stand by my opinion that we're not getting anywhere.

[J. J.]

1 minute ago, Joshua Katz said:

That doesn't even make sense. 3% of what per year? The dues are not 3% per year, they are going up (i.e. changing) by 3%. I stand by my opinion that we're not getting anywhere.

The dues increase is 3% of the dues.  Assume that this  mean 3% of the dues annually when the proposal was adopted, for simplicity, and that this was adopted 2017.  In 2017, the dues were $100 per year.  In 2018, the dues were $103.  In 2019, they are $106.  In 2020, the will be $109.  In 2021, they will be $112.

The proposal is "that the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues," again for simplicity; that is the proposal as approved in 2017.  

What is wording of that rule in 2018?  "That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues."  What is wording of the rule in 2019?  "That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues."  In 2020, unless amended?  "That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues."  2021?  "That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues."  There has been no change to that rule. 

[Guest Zev]

Again, respectfully. The rule as originally written intended that each change be voted on by the membership. After it was changed the practical effect is that changes in the dues would occur without a vote by the membership. If this type of thing is not a clever overthrow of the bylaw requirement then I don't know what it is. The fact that the membership is torn between what is logical and what outrageous is their problem that they have to wrestle with.

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

In my view, this is not consistent with the rule in the bylaws.

If you guys want to talk with me any further about this then I am in this corner over here with Mr. Martin, if he will allow me.

[Joshua Katz]

5 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

The rule as originally written intended that each change be voted on by the membership. After it was changed the practical effect is that changes in the dues would occur without a vote by the membership. If this type of thing is not a clever overthrow of the bylaw requirement then I don't know what it is.

Well, I agree with your conclusion, but I'm not sure if I agree with how you got there. Or, rather, I think you need an extra step. Intent matters if the language is ambiguous. If it were clear, the intent would be irrelevant. I happen to agree that this was probably not anticipated or intended.

8 minutes ago, J. J. said:

The dues increase is 3% of the dues.  Assume that this  mean 3% of the dues annually when the proposal was adopted, for simplicity, and that this was adopted 2017.  In 2017, the dues were $100 per year.  In 2018, the dues were $103.  In 2019, they are $106.  In 2020, the will be $109.  In 2021, they will be $112.

 

Well, first, I don't take the OP to say that. But if it did, the dues would still clearly be different year to year, i.e. changed. The bylaws prohibit changes to dues without the procedure, not changes to "that rule."

 

[J. J.]

I see nothing in the presented bylaw that would even hint that it was the intent of the framers to require the dues be approved each year. 

 

Just now, Joshua Katz said:

Well, I agree with your conclusion, but I'm not sure if I agree with how you got there. Or, rather, I think you need an extra step. Intent matters if the language is ambiguous. If it were clear, the intent would be irrelevant. I happen to agree that this was probably not anticipated or intended.

Well, first, I don't take the OP to say that. But if it did, the dues would still clearly be different year to year, i.e. changed. The bylaws prohibit changes to dues without the procedure, not changes to "that rule."

 

The dues differ.  However, the bylaws to do not say that there must be notice and a vote any time the amount of the dues is different from the prior year.

The bylaws refer to the "proposed change."  In 2017, the proposed change was:  "That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues."    There was no proposed change in 2018, or 2019.  Except by amending or rescinding the adopted rule, " That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues," there will be no change in 2020 either.

The dues and the adopted proposal are two different things. 

[Joshua Katz]

3 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I see nothing in the presented bylaw that would even hint that it was the intent of the framers to require the dues be approved each year. 

 

Which is why I never claimed it said or intended any such thing, and have now pointed out that no one has claimed that 3 or 4 times. 

 

3 minutes ago, J. J. said:

The dues differ.  However, the bylaws to do not say that there must be notice and a vote any time the amount of the dues is different from the prior year.

 

If the dues are different, then they have changed.

4 minutes ago, J. J. said:

 The bylaws refer to the "proposed change."  In 2017, the proposed change was:  "That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues."    There was no proposed change in 2018, or 2019.  Except by amending or rescinding the adopted rule, " That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues," there will be no change in 2020 either.

 

You continue, in my opinion, to equivocate on what change refers to. I see no point to continuing to play ping-pong on this point. I will not reply further on this thread because it's becoming repetitive.

[J. J.]

Just now, Joshua Katz said:

Which is why I never claimed it said or intended any such thing, and have now pointed out that no one has claimed that 3 or 4 times. 

 

If the dues are different, then they have changed.

You continue, in my opinion, to equivocate on what change refers to. I see no point to continuing to play ping-pong on this point. I will not reply further on this thread because it's becoming repetitive.

The first point was a reference to Zev's comment.

I don't equivocate; I state it directly.  Under the bylaw quoted, if there is a proposed change in the rule relating to the dues the rule regarding notice must be followed.  It does not relate to the dues itself.  In other words, it controls how the dues are set, not what the dues are.

They bylaws could have been constructed, fairly easily, to require every time the dues were changed.  Simply saying "any proposed change in the amount of the dues," would be sufficient.   If the framers had wished to prevent something like a standard percentage, the could have, with ease; they did not.  That may point to the intent. 

[Josh Martin]

13 hours ago, J. J. said:

The first point was a reference to Zev's comment.

I don't equivocate; I state it directly.  Under the bylaw quoted, if there is a proposed change in the rule relating to the dues the rule regarding notice must be followed.  It does not relate to the dues itself.  In other words, it controls how the dues are set, not what the dues are.

They bylaws could have been constructed, fairly easily, to require every time the dues were changed.  Simply saying "any proposed change in the amount of the dues," would be sufficient.   If the framers had wished to prevent something like a standard percentage, the could have, with ease; they did not.  That may point to the intent. 

JJ, the original sentence in question states “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 sentence does not say anything about a proposed change in the rule establishing the dues. The word “rule” does not appear in the sentence at all. I don’t really see how this is all that different from saying “any proposed change in the amount of the dues.”

So I don’t find this argument about a change in the rule versus a change in the dues to be all that persuasive, since the rule refers to changes in the dues (and since you find this wording to be important, also refers “the amount of annual dues” in one place).

I find the argument by Mr. Brown and Mr. Kapur it be somewhat more persuasive. As I understand it, their argument is that while the society is required to approve each change in the dues, there is nothing preventing them from approving multiple changes (or even an infinite number of changes) in advance, which is what the assembly did here. This seems to be a reasonable enough argument, but I am not inclined to agree with it. The very purpose of the rule is clearly to require membership approval of changes in the dues. Permitting a motion which no longer requires such approval for dues increases of no more than 3%, in my view, conflicts with the rule.

I also certainly agree with Mr. Brown that this is a question of bylaws interpretation for the society to decide for itself. I am not persuaded by the arguments on either side suggesting there is only one reasonable interpretation of this rule. It seems to me it is sufficiently ambiguous to be open to interpretation, and it is ultimately an interpretation for the society itself to make. In any event, I would recommend the society amend the bylaws when all is said and done so the intent is clear.

[J. J.]

21 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

JJ, the original sentence in question states “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 sentence does not say anything about a proposed change in the rule establishing the dues. The word “rule” does not appear in the sentence at all. I don’t really see how this is all that different from saying “any proposed change in the amount of the dues.”

So I don’t find this argument about a change in the rule versus a change in the dues to be all that persuasive, since the rule refers to changes in the dues (and since you find this wording to be important, also refers “the amount of annual dues” in one place).

I find the argument by Mr. Brown and Mr. Kapur it be somewhat more persuasive. As I understand it, their argument is that while the society is required to approve each change in the dues, there is nothing preventing them from approving multiple changes (or even an infinite number of changes) in advance, which is what the assembly did here. This seems to be a reasonable enough argument, but I am not inclined to agree with it. The very purpose of the rule is clearly to require membership approval of changes in the dues. Permitting a motion which no longer requires such approval for dues increases of no more than 3%, in my view, conflicts with the rule.

I also certainly agree with Mr. Brown that this is a question of bylaws interpretation for the society to decide for itself. I am not persuaded by the arguments on either side suggesting there is only one reasonable interpretation of this rule. It seems to me it is sufficiently ambiguous to be open to interpretation, and it is ultimately an interpretation for the society itself to make. In any event, I would recommend the society amend the bylaws when all is said and done so the intent is clear.

Let's go back to the rule itself, in toto.

" 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 board has the amount of dues, and has submitted the "proposed dues changes."  Again, they could express this in a motion, "that the annual dues shall be equal to the annual dues of the previous year, plus 3 percent of the the previous year's dues, rounded to the nearest cent."  That statement is the "proposed change in the amount of the dues."  That is a standing rule as much as a proposal, "that the annual dues shall be $100," is a standing rule as adopted. 

The proposal "that the annual dues shall be equal to the annual dues of the previous year, plus 3 percent of the the previous year's dues, rounded to the nearest cent," Where X equals the previous year's dues, the current dues are X + (X/100 x 3), rounded to the nearest cent.  That is the amount of the dues increase.  That is not substantive different than adopting this proposal:

"The annual dues shall be set for the stated amount for each year listed:

2019:  $103

2020:  $106.09

2021:  $110.11

2022:  $113.41

.................. (out to infinity)."

The difference is that the second example expresses it in dollars and cents (and is infinitely longer).  There is nothing in the bylaw quoted that says, "The dollar amount of the dues shall be included with the notice,"  "or "included in the proposal."  The idea that a proposal, to be valid, must express things in dollar amounts is being read into the bylaws.

I won't discuss future years in this question, but it does relate to the expression question.  The proposal is "That the annual dues be set at the annual dues in 2018, plus ten percent."  If you think that the proposal violates the bylaws, please indicate why. 

 

 

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

I won't discuss future years in this question, but it does relate to the expression question.  The proposal is "That the annual dues be set at the annual dues in 2018, plus ten percent."  If you think that the proposal violates the bylaws, please indicate why. 

No, not at all. I have no objection to expressing the increase as a percentage.

[J. J.]

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

No, not at all. I have no objection to expressing the increase as a percentage.

The proposal is   "That the annual dues be set at the annual dues in 2018, plus ten percent for 2019, and that, for 2020,  the annual dues be set at the annual dues in 2018, plus fifteen percent."  Again, if you think this proposal violates the bylaws, please indicate why.

If the proposal, made this year, without the other being adopted was, "That the annual dues for 2021 be set at the annual dues in 2018, plus twenty percent,"  would that violate the quoted bylaw.

I am not following your logic, so that is why I am asking.