Guest daniel ginsberg Posted June 7, 2010 at 02:36 AM Report Share Posted June 7, 2010 at 02:36 AM can the assembly temporarily over ride a bylaw by 2/3 vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted June 7, 2010 at 02:45 AM Report Share Posted June 7, 2010 at 02:45 AM If the bylaw is in the nature of a rule of order it MAY be able to be suspended temporarily by a 2/3 vote (RONR p. 17). However, a good rule of thumb to follow is that nothing in the bylaws can be suspended unless conclusive evidence can be produced proving it can be suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted June 7, 2010 at 09:24 AM Report Share Posted June 7, 2010 at 09:24 AM Can the assembly temporarily over ride a bylaw by 2/3 vote?"Override"? No.However, The Book does describe how certain rules of order can be suspended, even if embedded in one's bylaws.It depends on the bylaw. - Is it "clearly identifiable as in the nature of special rules of order" [p. 17]?• If the bylaw in question is an order of business (commonly, the agenda to run through at regular meetings), then YES, you may suspend such a rule and entertain business in a new order.• If the bylaw in question is a qualification for office, then NO, you cannot suspend that rule at all. Not even unanimously.Q. What do you intend to suspend? Is it clearly identifiable as being in the nature of a rule of order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest daniel ginsberg Posted June 16, 2010 at 03:17 AM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 03:17 AM "Override"? No.However, The Book does describe how certain rules of order can be suspended, even if embedded in one's bylaws.It depends on the bylaw. - Is it "clearly identifiable as in the nature of special rules of order" [p. 17]?• If the bylaw in question is an order of business (commonly, the agenda to run through at regular meetings), then YES, you may suspend such a rule and entertain business in a new order.• If the bylaw in question is a qualification for office, then NO, you cannot suspend that rule at all. Not even unanimously.Q. What do you intend to suspend? Is it clearly identifiable as being in the nature of a rule of order?The bylaws state that a board member may be elected for three 3 year terms. She is completing her ninth year. We want her to stay on the board for a tenth year. ( we then can consider her for a life membership in her tenth year.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted June 16, 2010 at 08:09 AM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 08:09 AM The bylaws state that a board member may be elected for three 3 year terms.She is completing her ninth year.We want her to stay on the board for a tenth year. (we then can consider her for a life membership in her tenth year.)Do the arithmetic:Three 3-year terms adds up to nine years.And, per your statement, "she is completing her ninth year."If you want to violate the rule, you cannot.If you want to suspend the rule, you cannot.You must amend the bylaws (the document which contains the rule about term limits).If you guys had wanted an officer to continue 10 years or more, you never should have drafted, nor adopted, such a term limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 16, 2010 at 05:07 PM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 05:07 PM The bylaws state that a board member may be elected for three 3 year terms. She is completing her ninth year. We want her to stay on the board for a tenth year. ( we then can consider her for a life membership in her tenth year.)Such a rule is not in the nature of a rule of order and may not be suspended unless the Bylaws specifically provide for its suspension. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 12, lines 29-31) Otherwise, you'll need to amend the Bylaws. (RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 573-580) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Confused Posted June 16, 2010 at 05:15 PM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 05:15 PM [quote name='Kim Goldsworthy' date='16 June 2010 - 03:09 AM' timestamp='1276675776' post='14367'If you guys had wanted an officer to continue 10 years or more, you never should have drafted, nor adopted, such a term limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Confused Revisited Posted June 16, 2010 at 05:18 PM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 05:18 PM Although this is a handy way to keep that life-time membership (dues-free perhaps?) roster pared down, indeed. And just to be clear, that above "quote" attributed to Kim Goldsworthy was an apparent error on my posting part. I clearly recall, as I'm doing now, posting below the closing brackets of the quote tag. So, should this post appear as a "quote" of Mr. Confused, then I believe I have stumbled upon a hiccup. And if not, in the words of Emily Littella....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted June 16, 2010 at 05:45 PM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 05:45 PM I clearly recall, as I'm doing now, posting below the closing brackets of the quote tag. If you go to the post in question and click on "Edit", you'll see what you actually entered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Confused Posted June 16, 2010 at 06:21 PM Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 at 06:21 PM If you go to the post in question and click on "Edit", you'll see what you actually entered.Unfortunately Guests don't have the Edit option enabled. So, off to the registration page! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.