Can I win this one?

[Tomm]

Bylaws state under Acceptable Practices During the Petitions Circulation:

2. Petitions will not be:

         1. Circulated within or at RCSC Facilities except those for RCSC Board Candidates.

This prevents the general Members from collecting petition signatures for initiatives, referendums and recall petitions on the RCSC Facility property.

The Articles of Incorporation states: "The Bylaws of the Corporation shall prescribe the qualifications of Members and the terms of admission to membership, provided that the voting rights of all Members shall be equal and all Members shall have equal rights and privileges, and be subject to equal responsibilities."

I contend that affording the privilege of collecting signatures to only those members who are running for the board is a violation of the Articles of Incorporation which states all Members shall have equal rights and privileges. 

Question: Am I correct that that bylaw needs to be amended and the words in that entire requirement need to be stricken?

[Shmuel Gerber]

This has nothing to do with parliamentary procedure. But ...

I do not think you are correct. The rule relates to which kinds of petitions can be circulated, not whether particular members can circulate them.

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

Short answer, no.

Equal rights and privileges of members, and determinations about to what matters those rights may or may not be applied are different questions.  

[Tomm]

On 2/6/2022 at 2:28 PM, Greg Goodwiller said:

Equal rights and privileges of members, and determinations about to what matters those rights may or may not be applied are different questions.  

Can we agree that this bylaw is affording special privilege's to only certain Members while excluding the rest? In the meantime, it all relates to simply gaining signatures for a petition? It seems to me that this Bylaw is creating 2 different classes of Members when the Articles of Incorporation require otherwise?

[Joshua Katz]

On 2/6/2022 at 4:37 PM, Tomm said:

Can we agree that this bylaw is affording special privilege's to only certain Members while excluding the rest? In the meantime, it all relates to simply gaining signatures for a petition? It seems to me that this Bylaw is creating 2 different classes of Members when the Articles of Incorporation require otherwise?

By this logic, every rule creates two classes: those who wish to follow it, and those who do not.

I would submit that, however this rule is worded, it is in substance a rule about what petitions can be circulated, not who can do what. 

[Tomm]

On 2/6/2022 at 2:56 PM, Joshua Katz said:

I would submit that, however this rule is worded, it is in substance a rule about what petitions can be circulated, not who can do what. 

Well, I'm not sure exactly how you are interpreting that bylaw but the truth is, if the Membership wants to collect signatures for absolutely any reason, including to call a special membership meeting, we are not allowed to collect our signatures on facility property!

For the life of me, I just don't understand how that's NOT creating a special privilege? Just because you may be running for the board, until you are actually elected you don't  deserve to have any more privilege's than any other Member?

[Joshua Katz]

As I said, it's a rule about what sorts of petitions may be circulated: none except those for board elections. 

Put it another way. Suppose I'm a board candidate. Then, just like you, I cannot circulate petitions for initiatives.

[Tomm]

On 2/6/2022 at 3:07 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Suppose I'm a board candidate. Then, just like you, I cannot circulate petitions for initiatives.

With all due respect, I don't believe you understand what's happening! If you're running for the board you're allowed to collect signatures on the facility property (candidates are required to collect at least 100 signatures to be eligible to be put on the ballot). If you're not running for the board, you cannot collect signatures on facility property regardless of what the petition is for!

What am I missing?

[Joshua Katz]

On 2/6/2022 at 6:50 PM, Tomm said:

f you're running for the board you're allowed to collect signatures on the facility property (candidates are required to collect at least 100 signatures to be eligible to be put on the ballot). If you're not running for the board, you cannot collect signatures on facility property regardless of what the petition is for!

But if you're running for the board, you're not allowed to collect signatures for any purpose other than the ballot. As I said, if I'm a candidate, and you're not, then, just like you, I can't go collect signatures for anything else. You can, presumably, circulate petitions for a board candidate if you want. But even if there's a rule I'm not aware of that only a candidate can circulate their own petitions, then you and I both cannot circulate petitions for anyone other than ourselves. Where is the different treatment? It's not as if board candidates can go around on facility property circulating whatever petitions they want. They can circulate specific petitions, not because of who they are, but because of what the petitions are.

[Tomm]

I kinda half-heartedly understand your explanation, but it seems to me "equal privileges" means that either every member can collect signatures on facility property or nobody can regardless of what the petition is about!

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/6/2022 at 7:46 PM, Tomm said:

I kinda half-heartedly understand your explanation, but it seems to me "equal privileges" means that either every member can collect signatures on facility property or nobody can regardless of what the petition is about!

All members have the equal right to collect signatures for board candidates.  

All members are equally prohibited from collecting signatures for other reasons.

There's no inequality of privileges, as all members must follow the same rules.

[Josh Martin]

On 2/6/2022 at 6:46 PM, Tomm said:

I kinda half-heartedly understand your explanation, but it seems to me "equal privileges" means that either every member can collect signatures on facility property or nobody can regardless of what the petition is about!

I concur with the previous responses. The rule in the bylaws does not create any inequality between members, it creates inequality between petitions. The rule in the articles does not require equality of petitions. In my view, the rule in the bylaws is therefore valid. Whether it is in the organization's best interests is a separate question and is for the organization to decide for itself.

Ultimately of course, it is up to the organization to interpret its own rules, so if you feel differently, make your case to the organization.

Edited February 7, 2022 at 12:14 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

The question is on this passage: 

2. Petitions will not be:

         1. Circulated within or at RCSC Facilities except those for RCSC Board Candidates.

It could mean, as my colleagues suggest, that this means that only petitions supporting the nomination of RCSC Board candidates may be circulated within the facilities.  For example, no one could circulate a petition to serve whiskey at meetings, free of charge, but a petition to nominate Smith for the board could be.

It could mean, as Tomm suggests, that only candidates for the board candidates can circulate petitions.  A candidate could circulate a petition to serve whiskey at meetings, free of charge.

While I agree that the first interpretation is the most reasonable, the second interpretation is a reasonable interpretation as well.  It probably should be reworded.

[Josh Martin]

On 2/7/2022 at 7:55 AM, J. J. said:

The question is on this passage: 

2. Petitions will not be:

         1. Circulated within or at RCSC Facilities except those for RCSC Board Candidates.

It could mean, as my colleagues suggest, that this means that only petitions supporting the nomination of RCSC Board candidates may be circulated within the facilities.  For example, no one could circulate a petition to serve whiskey at meetings, free of charge, but a petition to nominate Smith for the board could be.

It could mean, as Tomm suggests, that only candidates for the board candidates can circulate petitions.  A candidate could circulate a petition to serve whiskey at meetings, free of charge.

While I agree that the first interpretation is the most reasonable, the second interpretation is a reasonable interpretation as well.  It probably should be reworded.

Setting that aside, would you agree that if the rule pertains to the subject matter of petitions (rather than who may circulate them), then it does not conflict with the rule in the Articles of Interpretation pertaining to equal rights of members?

Because I don't think Tomm is really arguing about which of these interpretations is correct - instead, he seems to be arguing that even the first interpretation conflicts with the rule in the articles.

On 2/6/2022 at 6:46 PM, Tomm said:

I kinda half-heartedly understand your explanation, but it seems to me "equal privileges" means that either every member can collect signatures on facility property or nobody can regardless of what the petition is about!

Edited February 7, 2022 at 03:04 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/6/2022 at 4:26 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

This has nothing to do with parliamentary procedure. But ...

I do not think you are correct. The rule relates to which kinds of petitions can be circulated, not whether particular members can circulate them.

I agree.  But to bring this thread to a conclusion, perhaps the next edition of RONR should note, somewhere in 56:68, that the word "for" does not mean "by".

[Tomm]

I will yield to your conclusion and will not challenge the Board/Bylaw, however, I still lean more to the belief that the focus should be on the "privilege" and not the petition.

Any Member can go to the corporate office, show their membership card, pick-up a candidate packet, and start collecting signatures on facility property.

For a Member to start a recall petition, or any petition, they must first get the approval to do so, which typically goes thru the corporations lawyer and they can refuse to allow you to even start the petition, (which was just done) not to mention all the rules, start dates, end dates, 3,218 signatures, etc. that go along with it!

I also view this as a restrictive rule that benefits and protects the board members and restricts the Membership. While it makes running for the board an easy task, it restricts the Members abilities to even initiate a recall, or referendum type of petition.

But I guess rules are rules and this is one I was hoping to change so that ANY Member could collect signatures on facility property regardless of the type of petition!

Thanks for all your responses.

[J. J.]

On 2/7/2022 at 10:01 AM, Josh Martin said:

Setting that aside, would you agree that if the rule pertains to the subject matter of petitions (rather than who may circulate them), then it does not conflict with the rule in the Articles of Interpretation pertaining to equal rights of members?

 

 

I completely agree on that point. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/7/2022 at 10:19 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I agree.  But to bring this thread to a conclusion, perhaps the next edition of RONR should note, somewhere in 56:68, that the word "for" does not mean "by".

And while we're at it, that No does not mean Aye, except in special circumstances.