bylaw rules

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

It depends on the nature of the "conflict"."

[Guest Craig]

are the motions amendments to your bylaws and if so were they recorded with the county and done at open meetings"

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

>>were they recorded with the county and done at open meetings<<

As far as RONR (and, therefore, this forum) is concerned, it makes no difference."

[Guest Craig]

I was refiring to our bylaws which require a 66% of the members to make amendemnts and must be recorded to take affect."

[Guest John M.]

>>I was refiring to our bylaws which require a 66% of the members to make amendemnts and must be recorded to take affect.<<

Well, that's all well and good for you, but those requirements might not apply to Lina's association, so your "

[Guest Craig]

SORRY"

[Guest Lina]

motions were not placed to change the amendment. motions were to set aside a bylaw. ex, must be a member for "x" amount of time, motion was made so a member could participate in something even though that member did not meet the requirement."

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

A bylaw which establishes the requirements for membership can not be suspended (or "set aside" or ignored). Any motion or action that conflicts with such a rule is null and void."

[Guest Trina]

> motions were to set aside a bylaw. ex, must be a member for "x" amount of time, motion was made so a member could participate in something even though that member did not meet the requirement. <

> ...voting on them, passing t"

[Guest Lina]

I appreciate all the feed back but I am still wondering the if the membership voted on it and the motion carried, can the membership, now, months later go back and change all that has happened based on that motion."

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

The short answer is, yes, it's not too late. Unless it is. Some things simply can't be undone. But this person is no longer a member (and, in a sense, never was) if he was admitted in violation of the bylaws.

So whether "all that has happene"

[Guest Lina]

the membership voted to waive a members time requirement so that person could run in a position. now interestingly this individual already held the position, by appointment to fill a vacancy, for one year. At time of elections, this persons time with com"

[Guest Gary c Tesser]

It's almost a day since Lina submitted her original post: so is the guy out yet?"

[Guest John M.]

>>now interestingly this individual already held the position, by appointment to fill a vacancy, for one year.<<

If the individual now meets the requirement for holding office, due to the passage of time, then there is no longer a con"