No By-laws no assocition

[Rebecca]

If 51% has not voted to form an assocition nor has 51% voted to approve By-laws . Can an assocition be legal.

[Chris Harrison]

If 51% has not voted to form an assocition nor has 51% voted to approve By-laws . Can an assocition be legal.

If the bylaws haven't been adopted you still don't have bylaws and it sounds like you all are still in the organizing phase of the process.

[hmtcastle]

If 51% has not voted to form an association nor has 51% voted to approve By-laws . Can an association be legal.

Legal questions should be addressed to an attorney. You may, for example, have articles of incorporation, or a state charter, without having bylaws.

And note that the default requirement is "a majority" (i.e. more than half), not "51%". You don't want to get off on the wrong foot from the very beginning.

[Rebecca]

If the bylaws haven't been adopted you still don't have bylaws and it sounds like you all are still in the organizing phase of the process.

Where in Robert Rule do you find statements like?:

Not odd.

By default, all organizations start out being 100% general membership run, and 0% board run.

(There is no board until one's bylaws define a board. And, of course, you have no bylaws either until the people agree to form an organization, and draft their bylaws, and freely join the organization they just created.)

So it isn't strange to take away the power of interpretation from one's board (or never give the power in the first place).

Now, whether the general membership should be supreme, or whether, as you say, "delegates" should be supreme, depends on other factors - e.g., frequency of meetings; allowance for special meetings, etc.

[Rebecca]

Where does Roberts Rule speak about this statement?:

Not odd.

By default, all organizations start out being 100% general membership run, and 0% board run.

(There is no board until one's bylaws define a board. And, of course, you have no bylaws either until the people agree to form an organization, and draft their bylaws, and freely join the organization they just created.)

So it isn't strange to take away the power of interpretation from one's board (or never give the power in the first place).

Now, whether the general membership should be supreme, or whether, as you say, "delegates" should be supreme, depends on other factors - e.g., frequency of meetings; allowance for special meetings, etc.

[Chris Harrison]

Where does Roberts Rule speak about this statement?:

Not odd.

By default, all organizations start out being 100% general membership run, and 0% board run.

(There is no board until one's bylaws define a board. And, of course, you have no bylaws either until the people agree to form an organization, and draft their bylaws, and freely join the organization they just created.)

So it isn't strange to take away the power of interpretation from one's board (or never give the power in the first place).

Now, whether the general membership should be supreme, or whether, as you say, "delegates" should be supreme, depends on other factors - e.g., frequency of meetings; allowance for special meetings, etc.

It sounds like you are asking a whole different set of questions than you did in your original post. Can you please clarify how your response applies to your original question?

[Guest dan]

Where in Robert Rule do you find statements like?:

Not odd.

By default, all organizations start out being 100% general membership run, and 0% board run.

(There is no board until one's bylaws define a board. And, of course, you have no bylaws either until the people agree to form an organization, and draft their bylaws, and freely join the organization they just created.)

So it isn't strange to take away the power of interpretation from one's board (or never give the power in the first place).

Now, whether the general membership should be supreme, or whether, as you say, "delegates" should be supreme, depends on other factors - e.g., frequency of meetings; allowance for special meetings, etc.

I find it strange that you ask a question, yet seem to know everything (assuming you are the same poster).

Many organizations start off (and always remain) board run, perhaps by law or regulation.

[David A Foulkes]

FYI - (or for Mr. Mountcastle's benefit, For Your Information), ART is "quoting" this posting by Kim Goldsworthy.

[Josh Martin]

Where does Roberts Rule speak about this statement?:

Not odd.

By default, all organizations start out being 100% general membership run, and 0% board run.

(There is no board until one's bylaws define a board. And, of course, you have no bylaws either until the people agree to form an organization, and draft their bylaws, and freely join the organization they just created.)

So it isn't strange to take away the power of interpretation from one's board (or never give the power in the first place).

Now, whether the general membership should be supreme, or whether, as you say, "delegates" should be supreme, depends on other factors - e.g., frequency of meetings; allowance for special meetings, etc.

Mr. Goldsworthy appears to be mostly paraphrasing statements in RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 464-466, with a pinch of Section 54 and a dash of commentary.

I suppose you referred to this because of the tangential reference to the formation of an ordinary society. RONR describes this in detail in Section 54 (pgs. 536-544)

Many organizations start off (and always remain) board run, perhaps by law or regulation.

Of course, applicable law will supersede the Bylaws of the organization. Mr. Goldsworthy's statement was, I'm sure, referring to the rules of RONR, although we should all be cautious about using superlatives.

[hmtcastle]

with a pinch of Section 54 and a dash of commentary . . .

Shaken, not stirred.