TraderFred Posted November 15, 2010 at 08:42 PM Report Share Posted November 15, 2010 at 08:42 PM This is a bit complicated. We are a sport/social Club with an 8 member Board. There is a separate 6 person Lodge Committee, operating our ski lodge. Our By-laws specify that all (policy) decisions of the Lodge Committee must be approved by first the Club Board and then by the members. If the Board does not approve a change, it is dead, it does not go to the members for a vote.This procedure was followed and a policy change was approved by both the Board and members. Now, the Board wants to rescind their approval. Our By-laws don't cover this and I am in a dilemma. Let's assume the Board announces its rescission at a meeting.a few questions:1. Would this automatically negate the motion passed by the Club? (Which I doubt)2. If not, would a member have to bring a 'a motion to rescind something previously passed' in front of the members?3. If the members do not vote to rescind the motion (even though the Board did), do we still have to live with it, even though our By-laws require Board approval.This is a unique situation and our By-laws, etc., are silent on this .Thank you, Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted November 15, 2010 at 09:09 PM Report Share Posted November 15, 2010 at 09:09 PM This is a bit complicated.Your bylaws can only be properly interpreted in their entirety, something that's beyond the scope of this forum. But if the general membership has the last word, then I'd say the general membership would have to rescind the motion (and the board would be out of the loop).See also Official Interpretations 2006-12 and 2006-13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted November 16, 2010 at 01:24 AM Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 at 01:24 AM This is a bit complicated. We are a sport/social Club with an 8 member Board. There is a separate 6 person Lodge Committee, operating our ski lodge. Our By-laws specify that all (policy) decisions of the Lodge Committee must be approved by first the Club Board and then by the members. If the Board does not approve a change, it is dead, it does not go to the members for a vote.This procedure was followed and a policy change was approved by both the Board and members. Now, the Board wants to rescind their approval. Our By-laws don't cover this and I am in a dilemma. Let's assume the Board announces its rescission at a meeting.a few questions:1. Would this automatically negate the motion passed by the Club? (Which I doubt)2. If not, would a member have to bring a 'a motion to rescind something previously passed' in front of the members?3. If the members do not vote to rescind the motion (even though the Board did), do we still have to live with it, even though our By-laws require Board approval.This is a unique situation and our By-laws, etc., are silent on this .Thank you, FredRONR doesn't have an answer for you on this one, since you're dealing with a unique procedure established in your own bylaws. Your organization will have to decide what its rules mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted November 16, 2010 at 01:29 AM Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 at 01:29 AM RONR doesn't have an answer for you on this one . . .Then one can't help but wonder why the entire post was quoted.Less is more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted November 16, 2010 at 01:31 AM Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 at 01:31 AM Less is more.This is how I learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted November 16, 2010 at 09:58 AM Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 at 09:58 AM So, then, perhaps some of us will learn not to repeat stacks of what what was already said; and some of us (probably some overlap of these groups) might simply refrain from criticizing this minor solecizm; and perhaps thereby we might immantize the eschaton.(I don't think I made that reference in the last four or five years, which apparently only Mr Mt only caught that time, though I'm surprised that Mr Goldsworthy and Mr Honemann didn't jump at it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TraderFred Posted November 16, 2010 at 06:25 PM Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 at 06:25 PM Thank you all for your input, I appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted November 16, 2010 at 06:30 PM Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 at 06:30 PM .... solecizm.... immantize the eschaton.Gary - if it were anyone but you, I would suspect keyboard malfunction, although I'm not entirely unconvinced here either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 16, 2010 at 06:47 PM Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 at 06:47 PM Gary - if it were anyone but you, I would suspect keyboard malfunction, although I'm not entirely unconvinced here either. It must have been. He obviously meant "immanentize" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted November 17, 2010 at 08:28 AM Report Share Posted November 17, 2010 at 08:28 AM It must have been. He obviously meant "immanentize"Yeah, "immanentize." And "solecism," too.Gahh, it was Five in the morning. What do you monsters from the planet Xerxes want?[Edited to remove unclarity. Didn't work.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.