bylaw enforcement

[F. R. Edwards]

when to enforce bylaws

 

[Josh Martin]

3 minutes ago, F. R. Edwards said:

when to enforce bylaws

All the time.

[Richard Brown]

26 minutes ago, F. R. Edwards said:

when to enforce bylaws

 

 

22 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

All the time.

Can’t say it any better than that!

[F. R. Edwards]

THANKS & AMEN!   

What might I cite relative to RRofOrder regarding the following :   Even though this bylaw has been on the books for over  two decades, it has NOT been ENFORCED.  Does Membership need to be  given notice before Enforcement (stated in said bylaw) begins?

The membership of any member shall be forfeited upon—

(3) Missing 4 of 6 general membership meetings, or not participating in 50% of the organization’s activities.

[Richard Brown]

22 minutes ago, F. R. Edwards said:

THANKS & AMEN!   

What might I cite relative to RRofOrder regarding the following :   Even though this bylaw has been on the books for over  two decades, it has NOT been ENFORCED.  Does Membership need to be  given notice before Enforcement (stated in said bylaw) begins?

The membership of any member shall be forfeited upon—

(3) Missing 4 of 6 general membership meetings, or not participating in 50% of the organization’s activities.

No, notice does not need to be given, but if the custom for several years has been to ignore the bylaw provision, giving notice might be a good idea.

To start enforcing the provision,  the chair can announce it on his own or any member can make a point of order that the bylaws require that membership be forfeited upon the specified conditions.  The chair should rule whether the point of order is well taken.  His ruling can be appealed to the assemblly, which has the final word.   The appeal is debatable, but has special debate limits.  Every member can speak once, but the chair can speak twice, being the first and last to speak in debate.  It takes a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair.

The RONR provision you are asking about is probably section 2:25 regarding "custom", which states, in relevant part, "if a customary practice . . . is in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a point of order citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with".

[Guest Puzzling]

1 hour ago, F. R. Edwards said:

The membership of any member shall be forfeited upon—

(3) Missing 4 of 6 general membership meetings, or not participating in 50% of the organization’s activities

While I agree that in principle the bylaws should be enforced.

In this very particular case and given Covid19 this specific provision should only be enforced after the covid-emergency has gone.  That also will give you time to give notice that the provision  exist.

And that will give others  the chance to offer an bylaws amendment to remove this particular provision.

 😇

[Joshua Katz]

28 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

In this very particular case and given Covid19 this specific provision should only be enforced after the covid-emergency has gone.  That also will give you time to give notice that the provision  exist.

 

What principle is this based on?

[Josh Martin]

48 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

In this very particular case and given Covid19 this specific provision should only be enforced after the covid-emergency has gone.  That also will give you time to give notice that the provision  exist.

So I would first note that it isn't actually clear to me that COVID-19 will make it more difficult for members to comply with this rule. It might make it easier. If the organization's rules provide for meetings to be held by electronic means, for example, it will be easier for members to attend them. If the society currently does not have any activities outside of meetings, then it will be rather easy to attend 50% of zero activities.

In any event, RONR is quite clear that simply ignoring rules in the bylaws is not an option.

"Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended—no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be—unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension, or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described in 2:14." RONR (12th ed.) 25:7

It also seems to me that the proper solution to this rule is not to ignore it during the emergency, but to amend the bylaws to get rid of the rule altogether. Since the society has been (improperly) ignoring this rule for the past 20 years, I assume the society does not much care for the rule, emergency or not.

[F. R. Edwards]

On 2/15/2021 at 10:59 AM, Josh Martin said:

All the time.

THANKS!

[F. R. Edwards]

On 2/25/2021 at 8:10 PM, Richard Brown said:

No, notice does not need to be given, but if the custom for several years has been to ignore the bylaw provision, giving notice might be a good idea.

To start enforcing the provision,  the chair can announce it on his own or any member can make a point of order that the bylaws require that membership be forfeited upon the specified conditions.  The chair should rule whether the point of order is well taken.  His ruling can be appealed to the assemblly, which has the final word.   The appeal is debatable, but has special debate limits.  Every member can speak once, but the chair can speak twice, being the first and last to speak in debate.  It takes a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair.

The RONR provision you are asking about is probably section 2:25 regarding "custom", which states, in relevant part, "if a customary practice . . . is in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a point of order citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with".

THANKS!!! very much!!