Time bound Resolution Validity

[Jayadev]

Our not for profit organization recently passed a resolution in the board to reopen the temple on May 11th 2020  for public after our Illinois Governor relaxed lock down conditions  . Here is the wording of resolution " to open the temple to devotees for a minimum of 4  four hours starting May 11, 2020 without violating the Governor’s guidelines."  But our president sent a note to all trustees the temple opening is delayed and the temple was not opened for public on May 11th.  My question is  to open temple on a different date do we need a new resolution? Thanks in Advance

Jayadev

 

 

[Atul Kapur]

Quote

My question is  to open temple on a different date do we need a new resolution?

I don't think so, because the motion reads "starting May 11". Just because you are currently contravening the motion that was adopted, that doesn't make the motion invalid. It stays in effect and in full force. And you continue to contravene it until you follow it or rescind it.

(I assume you're in contravention, unless the Governor's guidelines still prohibit you from opening for 4 hours.)

Edited May 16, 2020 at 09:20 PM by Atul Kapur

[Jayadev]

Thanks Mr Atul Kapur.

[Richard Brown]

17 hours ago, Jayadev said:

But our president sent a note to all trustees the temple opening is delayed and the temple was not opened for public on May 11th.  

I agree with Dr. Kapur that a new resolution is probably not needed UNLESS the board wants the temple reopened immediately despite the president putting it on hold. I am a bit troubled by what may be the president’s willful refusal to comply with the board’s directive.   A bit more information might help us to better answer your question. 

[Josh Martin]

3 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree with Dr. Kapur that a new resolution is probably not needed UNLESS the board wants the temple reopened immediately despite the president putting it on hold. I am a bit troubled by what may be the president’s willful refusal to comply with the board’s directive.   A bit more information might help us to better answer your question. 

I'm not certain the President is engaging in a "willful refusal to comply with the board's directive." The motion adopted by the board was "to open the temple to devotees for a minimum of 4  four hours starting May 11, 2020 without violating the Governor’s guidelines." My understanding is that the stay-at-home order in Illinois has been extended to May 30.

If the board had adopted a motion stating that the temple would be opened on May 11, 2020, period, then there might be an issue, but it appears that the board (wisely) left flexibility in the motion for the possibility that reopening the temple on May 11 would not be permitted.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

I'm not certain the President is engaging in a "willful refusal to comply with the board's directive."

I’m not either and I think my post made that clear. That’s why I used  the word “unless” in all capital letters in the first sentence. I maintain that the possibility exists that the president is willfully obstructing the will of the assembly. That’s all I’m saying. It’s not clear from the original question.  If he’s not willfully obstructing it and the membership is fine with him putting it on hold, no problem.