Guest Billy F Posted August 9, 2010 at 01:37 PM Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 at 01:37 PM Our bylaws state "members of the same family shall not serve simultaneously on the Board of Directors or in an elected office." A member of our organization who is our parliamentarian says that this means family members can't serve simultaneously as board members OR as officers. Others in the organization say it means family members can't serve simultaneously as a Board member at the same time another family member serves as an officer. Is there something in RRofO on this--or is this something that requires a legal opinion, not a parliamentarian opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted August 9, 2010 at 01:45 PM Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 at 01:45 PM Is there something in RRofO on this--or is this something that requires a legal opinion, not a parliamentarian opinion.RONR does provide "Some Principles of Interpretation" which may be helpful.Frankly, I fail to see any difference in the two interpretation you provided.My interpretation would be that if, for example, Mr. Jones is on the board or is an officer, then Mrs. Jones can't be on the board and can't be an officer. But I don't have a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert B Fish Posted August 9, 2010 at 01:45 PM Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 at 01:45 PM Our bylaws state "members of the same family shall not serve simultaneously on the Board of Directors or in an elected office." A member of our organization who is our parliamentarian says that this means family members can't serve simultaneously as board members OR as officers. Others in the organization say it means family members can't serve simultaneously as a Board member at the same time another family member serves as an officer. Is there something in RRofO on this--or is this something that requires a legal opinion, not a parliamentarian opinion.Yes, there's a lot. Your organization will have to determine the meaning o fits own bylaws (p570). You can accomplish this by making a point of order at the next meeting regarding the situation. The chairman (perhaps with the assistance of the parliamentarian) will rule on your point of order. If you feel the ruling was in error, you can appeal and the assembly will decide. This establishes the precedent for your organization. You should amend your bylaws if you feel there's still room for ambiguity.Some principles of interpretation of your bylaws are on p570ff.-Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.