IS THIS RESOLUTION AN IMPROPER BYLAW CHANGE?

[star1441]

OUR organization holds lectures, seminars,meetings  etc.

In order to motivate members to show up and participate, we moved and resolved that members who do not attend a certain number of

such events each year, will not be eligible to work for the organization and get paid.

So far so good, but: The e.g. after '" no member may be employed (PAID)  by the association in any capacity" 

enumerated: "(Officer, committee member, ..writing for the website" etc.)"

Here is the problem: Our bylaws list the four officers, and describes their duties and compensation..

Does  this new motion improperly amends the bylaws as to 'officers' , and hence is null and void (only as to 'Officers')?

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

[Richard Brown]

25 minutes ago, star1441 said:

OUR organization holds lectures, seminars,meetings  etc.

In order to motivate members to show up and participate, we moved and resolved that members who do not attend a certain number of

such events each year, will not be eligible to work for the organization and get paid.

So far so good, but: The e.g. after '" no member may be employed (PAID)  by the association in any capacity" 

enumerated: "(Officer, committee member, ..writing for the website" etc.)"

Here is the problem: Our bylaws list the four officers, and describes their duties and compensation..

Does  this new motion improperly amends the bylaws as to 'officers' , and hence is null and void (only as to 'Officers')?

Thanks.

 

In my opinion the adopted resolution which prohibits paying officers is null and void as being in conflict with the bylaws, at least as far as it was intended to apply to officers.

[Richard Brown]

@star1441, see page 251, lines 9-10 and 25-26 of RONR. A main motion that has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws is null and void. A point of order on that point may be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach.