Dues in Standing Rule

[Weldon Merritt]

I know that the authority for collection of dues must be in the bylaws, but the bylaws may provide for the dues amount to be set in the standing rules. Suppose the bylaws have the following provisions in different paragraphs in the dues section

• Annual dues will be as provided in the standing rules
• Honorary members will pay no dues.
• Dues for student members as defined in the [parent organization's] Bylaws will be one-half the dues amount for regular  members.

Clearly, with those provisions, the standing rules may set the dues amounts so long as honorary members are not to be charged and student member dues are half of whatever amount is set for regular members. But may the standing rules provide for prorated dues based on the month in which a member joins? Or would proration have to be authorized in the bylaws?

[Richard Brown]

On 2/1/2023 at 10:44 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

But may the standing rules provide for prorated dues based on the month in which a member joins? Or would proration have to be authorized in the bylaws?

Weldon, in my opinion the language in the bylaws stating that "Annual dues will be as provided in the standing rules" is sufficiently broad to enable proration to be provided for in a standing rule.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I concur.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 2/1/2023 at 10:04 AM, Richard Brown said:

Weldon, in my opinion the language in the bylaws stating that "Annual dues will be as provided in the standing rules" is sufficiently broad to enable proration to be provided for in a standing rule.

That's what I think, too. I just wanted to see if anyone has a contrary opinion.

[Rob Elsman]

Well, it's your rule, so you tell us (just could not help myself 😁).

[Weldon Merritt]

On 2/1/2023 at 11:42 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Well, it's your rule, so you tell us (just could not help myself 😁).

Actually, it's not *yet) my organization's rule. It may be, if adopted, and I want to see if anyone disagrees with my interpretation.

[Atul Kapur]

Weldon, for what its worth, I agree with your interpretation.

However, rather than give Mr. Elsman (yet) another opportunity to regale us with his catchphrase, why not amend the proposed rule to make it explicit (and, perhaps, also make clear that this isn't an exclusive list so that you don't inadvertently get ensnared by Principle of Interpretation 56:68(4))? 

 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 2/1/2023 at 2:20 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Weldon, for what its worth, I agree with your interpretation.

However, rather than give Mr. Elsman (yet) another opportunity to regale us with his catchphrase, why not amend the proposed rule to make it explicit (and, perhaps, also make clear that this isn't an exclusive list so that you don't inadvertently get ensnared by Principle of Interpretation 56:68(4))? 

 

Thanks, Atul. The annual meeting will be considering both new bylaws and new standing rules, and I am thinking about moving an appropriate amendments  (or amendments). I was just trying to figure out if both would need to be amended, or if amending the standing rues also would be sufficient. I suppose amending both would make it very clear But for various reasons, I am thinkng that I would rather just propose amending just the standing rue. 

[J. J.]

I agree with the interpretation. 

[puzzling]

Just for the sake of argument .

The bylaws prescribe Annual dues not montly dues so the dues are annual and if you join during a year you still owe the annual amount (it also makes the administration easier)

[Richard Brown]

On 2/3/2023 at 9:12 AM, puzzling said:

Just for the sake of argument .

The bylaws prescribe Annual dues not montly dues so the dues are annual and if you join during a year you still owe the annual amount (it also makes the administration easier)

No, I disagree. Nothing in that language prohibits a standing rule from establishing different dues amounts for different categories of members, from prorating dues, from providing for monthly payment of dues, etc. 

[Rob Elsman]

On 2/3/2023 at 9:12 AM, puzzling said:

Just for the sake of argument .

The bylaws prescribe Annual dues not montly dues so the dues are annual and if you join during a year you still owe the annual amount (it also makes the administration easier)

I suspect that the most common understanding of "annual dues" is that the person gets twelve months of membership from the date that the term of membership commences. But, as I am fond of repeating, "It is your rule; you tell us."

Edited February 3, 2023 at 03:27 PM by Rob Elsman

[Weldon Merritt]

On 2/3/2023 at 8:12 AM, puzzling said:

The bylaws prescribe Annual dues not montly dues so the dues are annual and if you join during a year you still owe the annual amount (it also makes the administration easier)

I don't find this argument persuasive. Monty dues would mean that a member pays X amount per month, not X the first month, 11/12X the second month, 5/6X the third month, etc. 

 

On 2/3/2023 at 8:26 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I suspect that the most common understanding of "annual dues" is that the person gets twelve months of membership from the date that the term of membership commences.

I'm nit so sure that this is "the most common understanding." But IMO that interpretation would make the administration more difficult, not easier. The treasurer would have to keep track of each member's renewal date, whereas with proration, once the initial prorated dues are collected, all members' dues would become due on the same date each year. For the proposed bylaws I am considering the due date is specified (in another section() as January 1.

On 2/3/2023 at 8:26 AM, Rob Elsman said:

But, as I am fond of repeating, "It is your rule; you tell us."

Yes, you are. And I suspect I am nit alone it finding it to be snarky and not at all helpful. When someone posts a question here, it is because they want our opinions. It is true that when we are taking about another organization's rules, it is that organization's interpretation, not ours, that matters. And it may be a good idea to remind them of that fact and that our opinions are just that opinions and not gospel.  But if all you can says is "it's your rule, you tell us," then why respond at all? 

I my instance, I already had what I thought was the probable correct interpretation, but I wanted to run it by the forum to see if anyone thought I was way off base. So far, everyone who has responded except you has bolstered my interpretation. You have a contrary interpretation. While I am not convinced by your interpretation, it does gives me enough pause to think that it may be prudent to amend the proposed bylaws to make it clear that prorating the dues is allowed (or required). That is helpful; your snarky remark is nit.

[Atul Kapur]

On 2/3/2023 at 11:35 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

Yes, you are. And I suspect I am nit alone it finding it to be snarky and not at all helpful.

You are not alone, Weldon.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 2/3/2023 at 5:19 PM, Atul Kapur said:

You are not alone, Weldon.

Thanks, Atul. And I suspect there are still others.

[Dan Honemann]

I'm not one to object to Mr. Elsman's use of "It's your rule; you tell us.", and I certainly don't regard it as being snarky.  

In virtually every instance, the person using this forum in seeking an interpretation of an ambiguous provision in his bylaws is in a far better position to determine the provision's true meaning than anyone here.

"Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws. When the meaning is clear, however, the society, even by a unanimous vote, cannot change that meaning except by amending its bylaws. An ambiguity must exist before there is any occasion for interpretation. If a bylaw is ambiguous, it must be interpreted, if possible, in harmony with the other bylaws. The interpretation should be in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the bylaw was adopted, as far as this can be determined. Again, intent plays no role unless the meaning is unclear or uncertain, but where an ambiguity exists, a majority vote is all that is required to decide the question. The ambiguous or doubtful expression should be amended as soon as practicable."  RONR, 12th ed., 56:68(1) (emphasis supplied) 

 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 2/4/2023 at 5:29 AM, Dan Honemann said:

In virtually every instance, the person using this forum in seeking an interpretation of an ambiguous provision in his bylaws is in a far better position to determine the provision's true meaning than anyone here.

I agree. But it's one thing to tell them that the society ultimately must make its own determination while also giving them the benefit of our own views. It's quite another respond with the a dismissive comment telling them, in effect, "Go away and don't bother us." 

[Richard Brown]

On 2/4/2023 at 10:23 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

I agree. But it's one thing to tell them that the society ultimately must make its own determination while also giving them the benefit of our own views. It's quite another respond with the a dismissive comment telling them, in effect, "Go away and don't bother us." 

I agree wholeheartedly with that comment by Mr. Merritt. It expresses my sentiments exactly.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 2/4/2023 at 9:39 AM, Richard Brown said:

I agree wholeheartedly with that comment by Mr. Merritt. It expresses my sentiments exactly.

I agree as well.  And while the society does get to decide its interpretation, oftentimes people genuinely want to know if they what they believe is the interpretation is reasonable by people with more knowledge.  They want what is best and reasonable for a group that means a great deal to them.  We have knowledge they don't - we have seen similar provisions - we may realize that something that seems insignificant to some people, such as whether "or" or "and" is used in describing terms of office of officers, is in fact, quite significant.

In other words, let's be welcoming.  And extend that to each other as well.

Edited February 4, 2023 at 04:58 PM by Caryn Ann Harlos

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/4/2023 at 11:23 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

I agree. But it's one thing to tell them that the society ultimately must make its own determination while also giving them the benefit of our own views. It's quite another respond with the a dismissive comment telling them, in effect, "Go away and don't bother us." 

Reading "It's your rule; you tell us.", as being, in affect, the same thing as saying "Go away and don't bother us.", is a rather uncharitable stretch.  I think it is more properly to be understood as simply calling attention to the fact that the person asking the question is in a far better position to answer it than we are here.  That person has far better access to all relevant documents and persons needed in order to properly understand an ambiguous bylaw provision.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 2/4/2023 at 10:14 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Reading "It's your rule; you tell us.", as being, in affect, the same thing as saying "Go away and don't bother us.", is a rather uncharitable stretch.  I think it is more properly to be understood as simply calling attention to the fact that the person asking the question is in a far better position to answer it than we are here.  That person has far better access to all relevant documents and persons needed in order to properly understand an ambiguous bylaw provision.

Maybe so. But I believe that there are better and less dismissive ways of conveying that thought. It seems to me that saying, "It's your rule; you tell us," is rather uncharitable :in itself. And apparently I am not alone in thinking so.

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/4/2023 at 1:29 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

Maybe so. But I believe that there are better and less dismissive ways of conveying that thought. It seems to me that saying, "It's your rule; you tell us," is rather uncharitable :in itself. And apparently I am not alone in thinking so.

Well, you are also not alone in thinking that this forum is the place to come to have ambiguous bylaws interpreted.  It isn't.  This forum is provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to "specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised."  

Back in the day, when this forum was originally created, I was its only monitor and I was prone from time to time to disallow questions relating only to the proper interpretation of an organization's ambiguous bylaw provisions.  This was in exercise of the reserved right "to remove ... in whole or in part, ... any postings deemed ... to be sufficiently irrelevant ... to warrant such action."  I've grown to be more lenient in my old age, with the result that many threads have been and are now being posted that have absolutely nothing to do with any specific question of parliamentary law.  So if anyone has been guilty of saying, in effect, "Go away and don't bother us.", it's been me.

 

 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 2/4/2023 at 12:11 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, you are also not alone in thinking that this forum is the place to come to have ambiguous bylaws interpreted.  It isn't.  This forum is provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to "specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised."  

Back in the day, when this forum was originally created, I was its only monitor and I was prone from time to time to disallow questions relating only to the proper interpretation of an organization's ambiguous bylaw provisions.  This was in exercise of the reserved right "to remove ... in whole or in part, ... any postings deemed ... to be sufficiently irrelevant ... to warrant such action."  I've grown to be more lenient in my old age, with the result that many threads have been and are now being posted that have absolutely nothing to do with any specific question of parliamentary law.  So if anyone has been guilty of saying, in effect, "Go away and don't bother us.", it's been me.

 

 

I actually would be OK with that being the policy, if it were consistently enforced. But since it is not, I still contend that if anyone chooses to respond at all to such a question, it is fine to remind the questioner that the final arbiter of an ambiguous bylaw is the society itself, but there are better and less dismissive ways of doing so. 

BTW, looking back at my original question, I think it fairly can be read as a question about RONR, and not just about bylaws interpretation. I.e., based on what RONR says about dues, how much detail about the dues has to be in the bylaws rather than in the standing rules?

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I don't think even that prior stricter rule obviates what I stated.  While the society interprets its own rules certainly there are side constraints as to what is reasonable - there are terms of art etc that we know.

We need to realize that a lot of this seems like magic to people and our goal should be to promote a good will attitude towards rules etc or one ends up with a certain nightmare situation that is waiting to happen in my group in which a sub unit decided they don't need anything but "Martha's Rules" which is going to be a disaster in the future.  It is not going to be IF but WHEN and that is because people view RONR knowledge as a cult.  Thus the name of my show in which I try to make these things fun.

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/4/2023 at 2:11 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Back in the day, when this forum was originally created, I was its only monitor and I was prone from time to time to disallow questions relating only to the proper interpretation of an organization's ambiguous bylaw provisions.  This was in exercise of the reserved right "to remove ... in whole or in part, ... any postings deemed ... to be sufficiently irrelevant ... to warrant such action." 

 

On 2/4/2023 at 2:57 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

I actually would be OK with that being the policy, if it were consistently enforced. But since it is not, ...

Back in the day when the rule was enforced, I believe that it was uniformly enforced (or at least an serious effort was made to do so).  For example, when a rule in RONR was clearly involved, or when the bylaw question related to the meaning to be attributed to a word or words of art, the post was allowed.  If, on the other hand, nothing in RONR was relevant or could be of help, the question was usually deleted.  Today the rule is uniformly enforced because it is not enforced at all.

On 2/4/2023 at 2:57 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

BTW, looking back at my original question, I think it fairly can be read as a question about RONR, and not just about bylaws interpretation. I.e., based on what RONR says about dues, how much detail about the dues has to be in the bylaws rather than in the standing rules?

As I'm sure you already know, the most relevant provisions in RONR are found in 59:19:

" ... Usually the article on members consists of several sections, covering, for example: (1) classes of members—as “active,” “associate,” and the like—with any distinctions between them being set forth, and, as applicable, the rights of each, and any limitation on their number; and (2) qualifications or eligibility for membership, with application and acceptance procedures, including the method of reviewing and voting on applications. Unless the financial obligations of members are especially complicated, a section of this article should also state: (3) the required fees and dues, the date(s) when payable (whether annually, semiannually, quarterly, etc.), the time and prescribed procedure for notifying members if they become delinquent in payment, and the date thereafter on which a member will be dropped for nonpayment of dues. Before a member in arrears has been finally dropped under such a provision, his voting rights cannot be suspended unless the bylaws so provide. (See also 1:13n3, 32:8, 45:1, 47:39, 56:61(3).) Members cannot be assessed any additional payment aside from their dues unless it is provided for in the bylaws. If the necessary provisions relating to the financial obligations of members to the society are too complex to be included in this article, such provisions can be set out in a separate article immediately following."  (emphasis supplied)

You tell us that the bylaws in question  provide that "Annual dues will be as provided in the standing rules", and ask "... may the standing rules provide for prorated dues based on the month in which a member joins? Or would proration have to be authorized in the bylaws?"

I do not think that anything in 59:19 (or anywhere else in RONR) is of any assistance in arriving at an answer to your question. The responses you have received seem to find "Annual dues will be as provided in the standing rules" sufficiently broad to enable proration to be provided for in a standing rule. Nothing in RONR either supports or refutes these responses.  In fact, I'm confident that it there was anything in RONR of real assistance you would have said so.

We here have no way of knowing if there is anything else in your bylaws, or anything in your organization's history, which would be of assistance in determining the answer to your question. You do.