RONR Sample bylaws

[David A Foulkes]

Re: RONR Sample Bylaws:

Article IV Section 1 defines the (10) officers of the Society (P, 1VP, 2VP, RS, CS, T) and includes "and four Directors." Article VI Section 1 defines the Executive Board as "The officers of the Society, including the Directors, shall constitute the Executive Board."

Why do they include the distinction "including the Directors" since they have already been defined as "officers of the Society?"

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Re: RONR Sample Bylaws:

Article IV Section 1 defines the (10) officers of the Society (P, 1VP, 2VP, RS, CS, T) and includes "and four Directors." Article VI Section 1 defines the Executive Board as "The officers of the Society, including the Directors, shall constitute the Executive Board."

Why do they include the distinction "including the Directors" since they have already been defined as "officers of the Society?"

I don't know.

It appears to be a redundancy. (If JDS where here, he's say the rules are not "orthogonal" i.e., not uniquely limited, but rather with an overlap or redundancy.)

But! Maybe there is a distinction to be drawn between (a.) officers of the society; vs. (b.) officers of the Executive Board.

It is theoretically possible to have board chairman who is not the president of the society; to have a board treasurer or board secretary is not the society's treasurer or secretary.

Or, it just may be a goof. - To be corrected in the 11th edition.

[David A Foulkes]

Or, it just may be a goof. - To be corrected in the 11th edition. :lol:

Hmmm..... not sure I'll start holding my breath just yet.

[Dan Honemann]

Re: RONR Sample Bylaws:

Article IV Section 1 defines the (10) officers of the Society (P, 1VP, 2VP, RS, CS, T) and includes "and four Directors." Article VI Section 1 defines the Executive Board as "The officers of the Society, including the Directors, shall constitute the Executive Board."

Why do they include the distinction "including the Directors" since they have already been defined as "officers of the Society?"

It is obviously better to include the phrase "including the Directors" than it is to leave it out.

[David A Foulkes]

It is obviously better to include the phrase "including the Directors" than it is to leave it out.

I agree that this would greatly help clarify Article VI Section 1 as to the makeup of the Executive Committee. However, it might create some ambiguity as to Article IV Section 1 as to whether the Directors are in fact officers, as the definition of the EC seems to make a distinction between "officers" and "Directors."

[Robert B Fish]

It is obviously better to include the phrase "including the Directors" than it is to leave it out.

There are many instances in which the assembly, during interpretation of its bylaws cannot/will not/does not understand some of the nuances of parliamentary procedure, especially regarding items that occur infrequently. Examples include the details of and requirements for giving notice, activity around elections especially if terms are multi-year, discipline, tabling vs. postpone, executive committee vs. assembly (OI 2006-12, 13), etc. That's why, even though we parliamentarians know a particular item is covered in RONR, we might recommend it also be included in the bylaws. You can probably argue successfully that they should read and must follow their bylaws but they might not be inclined to study RONR.

-Bob

[David A Foulkes]

There are many instances in which the assembly, during interpretation of its bylaws cannot/will not/does not understand some of the nuances of parliamentary procedure, especially regarding items that occur infrequently. Examples include the details of and requirements for giving notice, activity around elections especially if terms are multi-year, discipline, tabling vs. postpone, executive committee vs. assembly (OI 2006-12, 13), etc. That's why, even though we parliamentarians know a particular item is covered in RONR, we might recommend it also be included in the bylaws. You can probably argue successfully that they should read and must follow their bylaws but they might not be inclined to study RONR.

-Bob

Might not? Might Not??? Ummmm... you have read some of the posts here, yes????

[Dan Honemann]

However, it might create some ambiguity as to Article IV Section 1 as to whether the Directors are in fact officers ...

It will create some ambiguity only in the minds of those who are searching for something to complain about.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I agree that this would greatly help clarify Article VI Section 1 as to the makeup of the Executive Committee. However, it might create some ambiguity as to Article IV Section 1 as to whether the Directors are in fact officers, as the definition of the EC seems to make a distinction between "officers" and "Directors."

I don't see how it creates any ambiguity. If a provision says "...all officers of the Society, including the President...", would you then think that the president might not be an officer?

[Robert B Fish]

I don't see how it creates any ambiguity. If a provision says "...all officers of the Society, including the President...", would you then think that the president might not be an officer?

Perhaps the Society once had an argument about this secton of its bylaws, including a point of order and an appeal of the chairman's ruling that ultimately sustained the chairman. Then, following RONR guidance (p570), even though the society's parliamentary guru's felt the meaning was already clear, they decided to make it clearer.

-Bob