Repair your mistakes in the fairest way possible

[Wright Stuff]

A regular poster offered this comment in a prior post: "Further, the general rule says that you obey your bylaws, and repair your mistakes in the fairest way possible."

Where in RONR is the directive to "repair your mistakes in the fairest way possible?" While it only makes sense to follow that path, I have not seen this general rule articulated in the book. 

[Josh Martin]

On 12/25/2023 at 12:58 PM, Wright Stuff said:

A regular poster offered this comment in a prior post: "Further, the general rule says that you obey your bylaws, and repair your mistakes in the fairest way possible."

Where in RONR is the directive to "repair your mistakes in the fairest way possible?" While it only makes sense to follow that path, I have not seen this general rule articulated in the book. 

I am not aware of where such a rule is articulated in the book.

The closest thing I can think of is this, although this deals with parliamentary law generally, not repairing mistakes specifically.

"The rules of parliamentary law found in this book will, on analysis, be seen to be constructed upon a careful balance of the rights of persons or subgroups within an organization's or an assembly's total membership. That is, these rules are based on a regard for the rights:

• of the majority,
• of the minority, especially a strong minority—greater than one third,
• of individual members,
• of absentees, and
• of all these together.

The means of protecting all of these rights in appropriate measure forms much of the substance of parliamentary law, and the need for this protection dictates the degree of development that the subject has undergone." RONR (12th ed.) pg. xlix

[Joshua Katz]

I'm not the regular poster in question, but this seems pretty hard to question to me. 

On 12/25/2023 at 1:58 PM, Wright Stuff said:

"Further, the general rule says that you obey your bylaws, and repair your mistakes in the fairest way possible."

What's the alternative? That you repair mistakes in an unfair manner? Without regard to fairness? Any answer other than the fairest way runs afoul of the entire thesis of the book, imo.

[Wright Stuff]

On 12/26/2023 at 9:08 AM, Joshua Katz said:

I'm not the regular poster in question, but this seems pretty hard to question to me. 

What's the alternative? That you repair mistakes in an unfair manner? Without regard to fairness? Any answer other than the fairest way runs afoul of the entire thesis of the book, imo.

That wasn’t the question. Presumably we all agree with the comment. I asked whether it is written, not implied. 

[Gary Novosielski]

I can't provide a cite in RONR, but it's something of a recurring theme in Parliamentary Law.  Remedies that are possible are given preference over remedies that are impossible, and among those possible, fair remedies are generally preferred over unfair ones.

 

[Atul Kapur]

On 12/25/2023 at 1:58 PM, Wright Stuff said:

A regular poster offered this comment in a prior post

And, since it was Gary's comment, his response above should be the final word.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/26/2023 at 1:26 PM, Atul Kapur said:

And, since it was Gary's comment, his response above should be the final word.

And so it shall.   I must admit that I had forgotten that I said it, and was disinclined to look it up to see who had.  Fortunately, I find that in this instance I am largely in agreement with myself, which was far from a sure thing.

[Wright Stuff]

On 12/26/2023 at 4:38 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I must admit that I had forgotten that I said it,

That's one problem with starting a new thread, as I did, instead of replying to an older one and getting hammered for doing so. 

Edited December 26, 2023 at 10:55 PM by Wright Stuff

[Atul Kapur]

On 12/26/2023 at 5:54 PM, Wright Stuff said:

That's one problem with starting a new thread

You can create a link to the original thread, as I did.

On 12/26/2023 at 1:26 PM, Atul Kapur said:

it was Gary's comment

You will see the "chain link" icon at the top of the editing box, alongside the bold, italic, etc icons

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 12/26/2023 at 9:08 AM, Joshua Katz said:

What's the alternative? That you repair mistakes in an unfair manner? Without regard to fairness? Any answer other than the fairest way runs afoul of the entire thesis of the book, imo.

Repairing your mistakes in the most humorous way possible would be a close contender, IMO. 

[Joshua Katz]

Well if Mr. Gerber says so, who am I to disagree?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/27/2023 at 4:16 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Well if Mr. Gerber says so, who am I to disagree?

If you ask at the front desk, they can tell you, dearie.

[Joshua Katz]

On 12/29/2023 at 4:23 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If you ask at the front desk, they can tell you, dearie.

They said I can check out anytime I want, but I can never leave.

[Gary Novosielski]

Oh, did I say front desk?  I might have meant nurses' station.

Edited December 31, 2023 at 07:15 PM by Gary Novosielski
An edit in the nature of a substitute.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Wouldn't this be analogous to Question 107 in Parliamentary Law?

[Lanie]

So, if an election was out of order, the fairest way to remedy it would be to have another election?  

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Ms.TC is not giving you the entirety of the details and is attempting to engage the members of this forum in something that is presently under litigation and handled by attorneys and presently under appeal before the 6th Circuit-though the parliamentary issues are not front and center, Trademark Law is (for those interested on their own it is Case No 23-1856, 6th Circuit).  The questionable election issue was decided by internal dispute resolution processes as determined by the bylaws as the bylaws in this matter expclitly have a provision on how to handle and declared void - a whole new biennial convention and brand new elections have already come and gone. As one of the parties (Plaintiff/Appelleee), I will not be commenting further.  She is a named party as well (Defendant/Appellant.   JJ, well known in this forum, has been engaged by one of the parties.   Mr. Martin previously was but I am unsure if that engagement is ongoing and that is his business.

 

Edited December 31, 2023 at 03:54 PM by Caryn Ann Harlos

[Josh Martin]

On 12/31/2023 at 9:17 AM, AngelaTC said:

So, if an election was out of order, the fairest way to remedy it would be to have another election?  

It depends on the manner in which the election was not in order. See RONR (12th ed.) 46:48-50 for more information.

If you have further questions on this matter, I advise posting it as a new thread.

On 12/31/2023 at 9:43 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Mr. Martin previously was but I am unsure if that engagement is ongoing and that is his business.

The engagement is not ongoing.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Thank you Mr. Martin I was not sure.  Obviously I cannot comment further under advice of counsel.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/31/2023 at 12:00 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Wouldn't this be analogous to Question 107 in Parliamentary Law?

Well, it's one example--in particular this one refers to an impractical quorum requirement:

107. QUES.   The by-laws of a society provide that they may be amended by a three-fourths vote of the entire membership, notice having been given at the previous regular meeting. These by-laws were adopted when the society was very small. Since that time it has grown to more than 600 members. It is a necessity that the by-laws be amended to meet the requirements of such a large organization. Repeated attempts have been made for two years to amend them, but it is impossible to get an attendance of three fourths of the entire membership. What can be done about it? 

ANS. Since the society has adopted a provision for amendment in its by-laws that is impracticable to carry out, the only thing that can be done is to change that provision to a reasonable one, complying, in making the change, with the spirit of the existing by-laws as nearly as possible. The makers of the by-laws did not foresee that the time would come when it would be impracticable to secure the attendance of three fourths of the membership at a meeting. If notice of the amendment of this by-law is given as required by the by-laws, and it is adopted by a three-fourths vote of the members present, and then a mail vote is taken on the adoption of the amendment as described in R. O. R., pp. 199, 200, and three fourths of the votes cast are in favor of the amendment, the amendment is adopted by a method as nearly in the spirit of the by-laws as is practicable. While voting by mail is not allowed by R. O. R. unless it is provided for in the by-laws, yet this rule must be broken in order to comply with the spirit of an unwise by-law. In R. 0. R., p. 270, the committee on by-laws is warned against similar provisions in by-laws. [See Ques. 105.]
 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Yes isn't there a principle there not bound to merely quorum?  To any IMPOSSIBILITY.

[Gary Novosielski]

I'd hesitate to make a blanket statement about a hypothetical.  In Ques. 107 the situation is called "impracticable", since it is technically possible.  

But I agree that the guiding principle, to bend the rules only to the narrowest achievable extent, is a good one to keep in mind when deciding how to get out of bad situations.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

The question literally says impossible.  I know the answer substitutes in impracticable, but the questioner asked about an impossible situation and the answer conflated the two.  It certainly was contemplating something beyond inconvenience like having to call a special convention (if allowed) or some other possible process, even if a PITA.  But why wouldn't you draw that out to a similarly impossible or impracticable situation?  I would though the bar would be pretty high.  I think I would set it higher than the two years in the original question actually.

[Wright Stuff]

On 12/31/2023 at 2:31 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Well, it's one example--in particular this one refers to an impractical quorum requirement…
 

@Gary Novosielski Where did you get a copy of PL that allows you to cut and paste? OCR?

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Good question LOL.  That is why I didn't put in the text, just the citation.