Guest Carole Posted November 10, 2010 at 12:09 AM Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 at 12:09 AM We have 13 board members, which include 5 officers (President, lst VP, 2nd VP, Secy. and Treasurer). Our bylaws state no two people from the same household are allowed to run for office at the same time. How should the word 'office' be interpreted? Does it mean the entire board, or does it mean 'officers'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 10, 2010 at 12:11 AM Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 at 12:11 AM We have 13 board members, which include 5 officers (President, lst VP, 2nd VP, Secy. and Treasurer). Our bylaws state no two people from the same household are allowed to run for office at the same time. How should the word 'office' be interpreted? Does it mean the entire board, or does it mean 'officers'?The interpretation of bylaws is something that has to be done by the society itself. If there's not unanimity, take a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted November 10, 2010 at 12:17 AM Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 at 12:17 AM Does it mean the entire board, or does it mean 'officers'?If it's any help, RONR (p. 555) says that "directors should usually be classed as officers" and the sample bylaws in RONR (p. 567) do just that.But if your bylaws don't then, perhaps, they're not. As Mr. Novosielski noted, it's up to your organization to figure out. And, once it does, the bylaws should be amended so the same question doesn't come up again.And while you're amending them, change "run for more than one office" to "hold more than one office". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted November 10, 2010 at 12:50 AM Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 at 12:50 AM We have 13 board members, which include 5 officers (President, lst VP, 2nd VP, Secy. and Treasurer). Our bylaws state no two people from the same household are allowed to run for office at the same time. How should the word 'office' be interpreted? Does it mean the entire board, or does it mean 'officers'?Carole, let me put more flies in the ointment. Q. Does your bylaw's rule refer to things like "committee appointments" too?That is how ambiguous your rule is. - No one knows if the drafters of your rule had meant (a.) the specific subset of people which you list as five; (b.) a generic term covering any position of official organizational status for all committees and boards.***W.W.K.D.? - What would Kim do? If I were a member of your organization, then I would key on the phrase, "run for office."If a position involved RUNNING, then I'd include it in the rule.That is, I would exclude un-RUN-able offices, like committee positions.But that's just me. - I would try to really, REALLY enforce the rule hard and tough. - As if the organization's intent was to prevent a concentration of power, and thus prevent a dictatorship. Yet a good argument could be made that the opposite is the case, i.e., that that rule only refers to the subset of five people in your master list (viz., P., VP1., VP2., S., T.) who are defined as "officers". So. "Yer pays yer money, and yer takes yer cherce."*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Ralph Posted November 10, 2010 at 09:52 AM Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 at 09:52 AM Ultimately the matter will only come to a head if and when someone makes a Point of Order that two people from the same household have been nominated for the one office. Then the chair will rule whether the bylaw has been violated, and on appeal a majority vote can reverse the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted November 10, 2010 at 01:53 PM Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 at 01:53 PM The interpretation of bylaws is something that has to be done by the society itself. If there's not unanimity, take a vote.Ultimately the matter will only come to a head if and when someone makes a Point of Order that two people from the same household have been nominated for the one office. Then the chair will rule whether the bylaw has been violated, and on appeal a majority vote can reverse the decision.And that's how Mr. Novosielski's broadly painted advice could play out in practice. You don't just sit around and chat, notice that you don't all agree on what the bylaw says, and then decide to take a vote.Also, with regard to bylaws interpretation, take a look at RONR pp. 570-573, which provide some principles of bylaws interpretation. Note that lack of unanimity is not supposed to be the criterion, when deciding whether interpretation should be undertaken. Ambiguity is (or should be) a necessary precursor to interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 10, 2010 at 08:24 PM Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 at 08:24 PM And that's how Mr. Novosielski's broadly painted advice could play out in practice. You don't just sit around and chat, notice that you don't all agree on what the bylaw says, and then decide to take a vote.Also, with regard to bylaws interpretation, take a look at RONR pp. 570-573, which provide some principles of bylaws interpretation. Note that lack of unanimity is not supposed to be the criterion, when deciding whether interpretation should be undertaken. Ambiguity is (or should be) a necessary precursor to interpretation.Would it not be in order to offer as a main motion or resolution, "That it is the sense of the assembly that the restriction in paragraph x of the bylaws was intended and is hereby interpreted to apply to the officers of the organization, viz., president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer, but not to trustees."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted November 10, 2010 at 08:46 PM Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 at 08:46 PM Would it not be in order to offer as a main motion or resolution, "That it is the sense of the assembly that the restriction in paragraph x of the bylaws was intended and is hereby interpreted to apply to the officers of the organization, viz., president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer, but not to trustees."?I think it would be better all around to just fix the language in the *&^% bylaws. But that's just me. <insert winky face here> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 10, 2010 at 09:00 PM Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 at 09:00 PM Would it not be in order to offer as a main motion or resolution, "That it is the sense of the assembly that the restriction in paragraph x of the bylaws was intended and is hereby interpreted to apply to the officers of the organization, viz., president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer, but not to trustees."?Yes, such a motion would be in order, however, it would only be advisory.I think it would be better all around to just fix the language in the *&^% bylaws. But that's just me. <insert winky face here>I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 11, 2010 at 04:21 AM Report Share Posted November 11, 2010 at 04:21 AM Yes, such a motion would be in order, however, it would only be advisory.Sure, but the odds of the assembly taking its own advice are probably better than even money. And a chair presented with this advisory resolution would be less likely to make rulings that conflict with it, since it does express the majority interpretation of the assembly.This would require only a majority, unlike actually amending the bylaws, which, as we know, can frequently be a pain in the hindquarters, depending on the state of the organization's bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.