Should bylaws include motivations?

[JamesMcLean]

What are opinions on the wisdom of including motivating factors in Bylaws.  As specific example, someone has proposed an amendment: "…3 members elected in even years and 4 members elected in odd years. This ensures continuity on the Committee from one year to the next."  Is it a good idea to include the second sentence in the Bylaws?

My bias is to minimize the words in the Bylaws, because otherwise Bylaws can expand to to the point that it harder to find pertinent rules.  I think I understand the motivation to add this sentence, but I don't think it adds to the utility of the document.

[Richard Brown]

On 4/6/2023 at 2:26 PM, JamesMcLean said:

What are opinions on the wisdom of including motivating factors in Bylaws.  As specific example, someone has proposed an amendment: "…3 members elected in even years and 4 members elected in odd years. This ensures continuity on the Committee from one year to the next."  Is it a good idea to include the second sentence in the Bylaws?

My bias is to minimize the words in the Bylaws, because otherwise Bylaws can expand to to the point that it harder to find pertinent rules.  I think I understand the motivation to add this sentence, but I don't think it adds to the utility of the document.

Adding the additional language is optional and up to the members of your organization.  It certainly is not necessary and most of our regular participants would probably advise against it.  I personally see no harm in it and it preserves for posterity what the rationale is for electing three members in even years and four members in odd years.  That method of electing board members is common, but adding the rationale is not.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/6/2023 at 2:26 PM, JamesMcLean said:

What are opinions on the wisdom of including motivating factors in Bylaws.

In my view, it is not wise.

On 4/6/2023 at 2:26 PM, JamesMcLean said:

Is it a good idea to include the second sentence in the Bylaws?

No.

On 4/6/2023 at 2:26 PM, JamesMcLean said:

My bias is to minimize the words in the Bylaws, because otherwise Bylaws can expand to to the point that it harder to find pertinent rules.  I think I understand the motivation to add this sentence, but I don't think it adds to the utility of the document.

I don't think this sentence adds anything to the meaning of the rule in question. It would be best to leave it out. To the extent it is desired to have some sort of "explainer" document regarding the rationale of the drafters of the bylaws, I would advise that this be separate from the bylaws themselves.

I think in other cases, this could be an even bigger problem, and the attempt to explain the rule may introduce ambiguity in the meaning of the rule. (Although I don't think that is as much of an issue in this particular case.)

Edited April 7, 2023 at 12:43 AM by Josh Martin

[JamesMcLean]

Thanks for the comments.  Further input from others would be great; as noted by Richard, this seems to be a point for persuasion, so the greater range of input, the better.

[Rob Elsman]

I concur with @Josh Martin.  Some members might generally be in favor of the proposed amendment, but they do not favor the "motivations".  It seems best to garner their votes by leaving out the "motivations".