Life membership

[J. J.]

The bylaws of the society, the Club, provide that a member may purchase a life membership for a fee of $150.00.  They will retain all the rights of membership but not have to pay the annual dues of $15.00.

1.  There is a member, Mr. A, that is well liked, paid his dues, but cannot afford to pay the $150 for life membership.  Is the motion "That the Club purchase life membership for Mr. A, in  this Club," in order?

2.  Ms. Z was a life member of the club, but was expelled.  She reapplied and was readmitted.  She has now become an exemplary member.  The Club members feel bad about expelling her.  Is the motion "That the Club purchase life membership for Ms Z, in  this Club," in order?

I cannot see any reason why either would be out of order. 

[Joshua Katz]

Me neither. What sparks the question? 

[Josh Martin]

On 12/18/2023 at 12:11 PM, J. J. said:

The bylaws of the society, the Club, provide that a member may purchase a life membership for a fee of $150.00.  They will retain all the rights of membership but not have to pay the annual dues of $15.00.

1.  There is a member, Mr. A, that is well liked, paid his dues, but cannot afford to pay the $150 for life membership.  Is the motion "That the Club purchase life membership for Mr. A, in  this Club," in order?

2.  Ms. Z was a life member of the club, but was expelled.  She reapplied and was readmitted.  She has now become an exemplary member.  The Club members feel bad about expelling her.  Is the motion "That the Club purchase life membership for Ms Z, in  this Club," in order?

I cannot see any reason why either would be out of order. 

I think it would technically be more compliant with the rules for the members in question to pay the fee for lifetime membership, and for the club to subsequently reimburse the members, as gratitude for their exemplary service to the club. But since it all works out to the same thing in the end, I suppose I would not sweat this distinction. In the long run, if the club desires to essentially waive the fee for life members, it would be preferable to amend the bylaws to provide as much.

[J. J.]

On 12/18/2023 at 1:14 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Me neither. What sparks the question? 

 

I have had several groups that have gone into disciplinary action over the last several years.  I am not thrilled about it.

In addition, I am being considered for life membership in a small group. 

 

[J. J.]

On 12/18/2023 at 1:20 PM, Josh Martin said:

I think it would technically be more compliant with the rules for the members in question to pay the fee for lifetime membership, and for the club to subsequently reimburse the members, as gratitude for their exemplary service to the club. But since it all works out to the same thing in the end, I suppose I would not sweat this distinction. In the long run, if the club desires to essentially waive the fee for life members, it would be preferable to amend the bylaws to provide as much.

It is not so much to waive the fee, but to do it in the specific case(s). 

[Josh Martin]

On 12/18/2023 at 12:49 PM, J. J. said:

It is not so much to waive the fee, but to do it in the specific case(s). 

Yes, I understand. If it is the organization's desire to waive the fee in specific cases, then the best solution to this is to amend the bylaws to provide a mechanism for such a waiver. Without such a provision, my view would be that the fee cannot be waived.

There are, however, potentially workarounds which can be used to accomplish the same objective, unless and until the bylaws can be amended.

[Richard Brown]

On 12/18/2023 at 12:11 PM, J. J. said:

I cannot see any reason why either would be out of order. 

Neither do I. I think both motions are in order.

[Rob Elsman]

If the purchase of life memberships for members does not fall within the purpose for which the organization exists, my sense of it is that the rules would have to be suspended by a two-thirds vote for the motion to be admissible. See RONR (12th ed.) 10:26, item 2.

[J. J.]

On 12/18/2023 at 4:51 PM, Rob Elsman said:

If the purchase of life memberships for members does not fall within the purpose for which the organization exists, my sense of it is that the rules would have to be suspended by a two-thirds vote for the motion to be admissible. See RONR (12th ed.) 10:26, item 2.

Membership is not beyond the purposes for organizations with individual membership. 

[Rob Elsman]

To know the scope of purpose of an organization, the governing documents have to be consulted.

[J. J.]

On 12/18/2023 at 5:30 PM, Rob Elsman said:

To know the scope of purpose of an organization, the governing documents have to be consulted.

Membership is implicit, where individual membership exists. 

[Rob Elsman]

I do not think generalizations are helpful. Whether such a motion is admissible must be determined on a case-by-case basis by examining the relevant governing documents.

[J. J.]

On 12/18/2023 at 8:00 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I do not think generalizations are helpful. Whether such a motion is admissible must be determined on a case-by-case basis by examining the relevant governing documents.

We know that the bylaws of the society, the Club, provide that a member may purchase a life membership for a fee of $150.00.  They will retain all the rights of membership but not have to pay the annual dues of $15.00.

So it is a question if it is in order for the Club to buy life membership for a member.  That is all. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/18/2023 at 5:30 PM, Rob Elsman said:

To know the scope of purpose of an organization, the governing documents have to be consulted.

If they contain an article on Membership, then I bet having members is within the scope.

[Rob Elsman]

For reasons I do not understand, there seems to be difficulty in understanding the meaning of the words, "...scope of the organization's object..." in RONR (12th ed.) 26:10, item 2.