Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle Posted May 10, 2010 at 10:42 PM Report Share Posted May 10, 2010 at 10:42 PM Well, they're not really setting aside the bylaw, they're just refusing to exercise their right to appoint a replacement. That's the problem with a rule that says "may" instead of "shall" (or "must"). Whethe" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JDStackpole Posted May 10, 2010 at 10:46 PM Report Share Posted May 10, 2010 at 10:46 PM And do the bylaws really say "MAY appoint"? Your text looked like a paraphrase, not a direct quotation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tee Thompson Posted May 10, 2010 at 11:41 PM Report Share Posted May 10, 2010 at 11:41 PM I would think once the president elect resigns (even those elected in advance) it would be proper to place the question to a vote or ballot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest J. J. Posted May 11, 2010 at 01:30 AM Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 at 01:30 AM I do not, if the bylaws provide another method. J. J." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John M. Posted May 11, 2010 at 04:22 AM Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 at 04:22 AM >>Can this be done?<< If your Bylaws really do say "may appoint," you're on your own. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation. If the Bylaws say "shall appoint," then no, it " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob Elsman Posted May 11, 2010 at 07:54 PM Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 at 07:54 PM You can see from the other replies that it is pointless to try to speculate about a set of bylaws that we know nothing about. I suggest you obtain the services of a parliamentarian in your area with whom you can sit down face-to-face and go over the relev" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.