Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Can I alter a bylaw to conflict with an ambiguous motion ?


twolifter

Recommended Posts

We have a very poorly worded bylaw that suggests membership is required in one of two different organizations before members can be allowed into the organization.

Existing by law that currently is the only mention of ABC club or XYZ club. (this part of has not been brought up to be amended)

Section 2 - Admission to membership shall be contingent upon membership in either [ABC club] or [The XYZ club] and payment of dues in such organization, and in the [name of my club] .

For years the bylaw has never been enforced because we really don't want to exclude anyone. What normally happens is that new members join one of the named organizations for one year and then drop out, or stay in if they like it. (basically these two other organizations are just rather expensive magazine subscriptions) Those who like the magazines keep the subscriptions those who don't pretty much drop out with out telling anyone. (I haven't subscribed to the magazine for 19 years btw, but I have not been a member attending meetings for all of those years)

Long story short, I came back and they decided to amend the membership rules to state less ambiguously membership in the ABC or XYZ clubs.

b. Active (Full) Members. An active or full member fulfills the criteria above,[meaning the criteria in a defeated motion for "a." has paid [name of my club] dues for the year, and has demonstrated membership in ABC or XYZ. If the member allows their membership to lapse for more than 2 years,[bylaw does not say which dues they are talking about] they will be asked to re-qualify via XXX before being accepted back as a full member.

I am fully aware that this bylaw is also ambiguous as to which organization either my club or the ABC or XYZ club is required after two years. (I think intentionally) But My club also holds two charters on in each the ABC club and the XYZ club (which is basically a violation of the bylaws of the ABC and the XYZ btw)

We have separated this part out. (thanks to suggestions on this board on another matter) but time restraints did not allow us to continue past this point. (Even tho old members started returning to pay their dues on time before it went into effect to attend and vote on the issue, but other obligations will keep them from attending the next vote. And this issue was tabled due to time restraints)

My goal is to offer suggestions to "b." that will clear up the issue and possibly overide "section 2" if agreed to by the membership, and allow my club to no longer require joining XYZ or ABC. (unless the individual member chooses to join those organizations of their own free will.

So my question is :

A) Because section 2 is not up for a vote, could a change to "b" be used to eliminate the requirement of section two because it is ambiguous ?

B. Would Section 2 overide the change to "b" if it was carried ?

Do my questions make sense to anyone ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A) Because section 2 is not up for a vote, could a change to "b" be used to eliminate the requirement of section two because it is ambiguous ?

B. Would Section 2 overide the change to "b" if it was carried ?

Do my questions make sense to anyone ?

No. :(

If you are asking a question about "how to customize wording of a process which is NOT meant to match Robert's Rules of Order," then we cannot help you.

We can tell you about RONR Tenth Edition (2000, DaCapo).

We cannot do the hours and hours of reading, cross-checking, blue-pencil-ing, etc., necessary to craft words which define "member" for your organization.

Consult a (live, in-person) parliamentarian.

Contact the N.A.P. and A.I.P. for their referral service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. :(

If you are asking a question about "how to customize wording of a process which is NOT meant to match Robert's Rules of Order," then we cannot help you.

We can tell you about RONR Tenth Edition (2000, DaCapo).

We cannot do the hours and hours of reading, cross-checking, blue-pencil-ing, etc., necessary to craft words which define "member" for your organization.

Consult a (live, in-person) parliamentarian.

Contact the N.A.P. and A.I.P. for their referral service.

Thanks for the reply.

Bought my (1st) tenth edition and "RONR in Breif" about a month ago, but have not been able to find anything that talked about conflicting bylaws, and which would be honored. I see in the index everything from adaptation to when a member can give notice on page 654-655 but considering most of the pages pertain to bylaws I am having trouble narrowing it down. It was not my intention to ask for help in word-smithing.

I have been able to find on the interwebs from the "rules of order" for dummbies" book:

Bylaws are subject to interpretation only when ambiguity arises. If the meaning is clear, not even a unanimous vote can impute to them a different meaning. In other words, if you want a bylaw to have a different meaning, then you have to amend it.

And I am looking for confirmation of the above in RONR as well.

However using the Dummbies book information, I feel diligence is required to confirm that information in RONR. If I can locate that information I feel I may be able to confirm for myself what I need to prepare. (any better ?)

I want to avoid "tricks" to accomplish another objective. The use of tricks undermines the democracy process, while still using tools that will allow for expediency. I do thank you for your comments I see from your March review on Amazon that you are a member of both organizations, unfortunatly my organization does take a very lax view of procedure and would simply vote against me if I went overly in depth. We do however use RONR as precedent when trying to accomplish something, particularly when it is something that some don't want to agree with when somebody takes the time to look up the procedures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A) Because section 2 is not up for a vote, could a change to "b" be used to eliminate the requirement of section two because it is ambiguous ?

A change to "b" which is in conflict with Section 2 could potentially make your Bylaw even more ambiguous, but it wouldn't eliminate anything from Section 2. I would highly advise against intentionally making your Bylaws more ambiguous. If you want to change Section 2 to eliminate the requirement, follow the proper procedures in your Bylaws to do so. :)

B. Would Section 2 overide the change to "b" if it was carried ?

If Section 2 and the clause in "b" are in conflict, that would be a question of Bylaws interpretation for your organization to determine. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation.

Do my questions make sense to anyone ?

Your questions make sense but your strategy does not. :)

Bought my (1st) tenth edition and "RONR in Breif" about a month ago, but have not been able to find anything that talked about conflicting bylaws, and which would be honored.

RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps Mr. Mountcastle can provide us with the YouTube link to that episode. In his spare time, of course.

I trust Mr. Foulkes isn't trying to lure me off-topic and into the wrathful maw of T.W.O.

That said, the following exchange seems obliquely relevant. To something.

Monk: Okay, Brian caught the fish. Possession is 9/10 of the law. That's the rule. In fact, when you're in the woods, it's 10/10.

Nicky: 10/10s? That doesn't sound right.

Monk: Yeah, rules don't have to sound right. That's another rule.

From the episode, "Mr. Monk Goes Camping".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your questions make sense but your strategy does not. :)

RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573

Strategy advice taken. And thank you for page numbers.

If anyone would help me clarify:

Pg 574 line 8 (#4) The rule that when a main motion is adopted no other conflicting main motion is thereafter in order is NOT applicable to the motion to amend the bylaws since several notices of proposals presenting different approaches to the same problem may have been given and all such bylaw amendments are entitled to be considered.

Does the above mean that the section (In my case Section 2 in the OP)That includes the original ambiguous statement that membership in an outside group is "contingent" on being accepted in our group. Can I amend it as well as "b."

OR does it mean:

We have a main motion to change the bylaws, and other main motions related to amending only these specific areas can change ?

I want to change "b." in Section two. However only a motion to add "a." and then amend "b." was given on this topic. If I want to change "b." in a section is the entire article up for changes as well ? or is it only the section "b." (actually no motion to change bylaws was made or voted on, it was just announced by the board that they had some changes from the board meeting. - basically they felt like they needed to do something. From what I am reading this is kinda improper, but only one of them owns a RONR and judging from the spine it looks like it has never been opened.)

For the record, I am very aware that everyone here has me outclassed in RONR procedures,I am very grateful for all of the help. I would not be offended if I was told to take my little questions elsewhere. I do have until the third Tuesday in January to find out for myself. I really don't know the purpose of this form. I was originally linked here from a Q&A page, but if this is an area for well read parliamentarians to discuss the finer points, I probably shouldn't be bothering you. I can imagine what would happen if someone stumbled into my little group just looking for answers with out being able to contribute, they would probably be instructed either politely or otherwise to "lurk moar". I don't know if this is like being at a party and asking for free medical or legal advice when you find out the person sitting next to you is a doctor or lawyer. Or if this was intended to be an educational forum. (good manners in progress)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the above mean that the section (In my case Section 2 in the OP)That includes the original ambiguous statement that membership in an outside group is "contingent" on being accepted in our group. Can I amend it as well as "b." We have a main motion to change the bylaws, and other main motions related to amending only these specific areas can change ?

The citation you are referring to has no bearing on the case at hand. What it means is that two (or more) competing proposals to amend a Bylaw could be offered, and both (or all) would be considered. It has no bearing on the permissibility of the subsidiary motion to amend on a main motion to amend the Bylaws. This is governed by the rules regarding "scope of notice." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 297, lines 4-22)

I want to change "b." in Section two. However only a motion to add "a." and then amend "b." was given on this topic. If I want to change "b." in a section is the entire article up for changes as well ? or is it only the section "b." (actually no motion to change bylaws was made or voted on, it was just announced by the board that they had some changes from the board meeting. - basically they felt like they needed to do something. From what I am reading this is kinda improper, but only one of them owns a RONR and judging from the spine it looks like it has never been opened.)

Well, apparently this will come up as a recommendation from the board. If the notice is to amend specific portions of the Bylaws, only those portions are open to amendment, and they may not be amended so as to increase the change. See the citation I mentioned regarding "scope of notice" for more information. If the notice is of a revision of the Bylaws, then the entire Bylaws are open to amendment. What subsidiary motions to amend are made has no effect on this - the permissibility of subsidiary motions to amend under the "scope of notice" rule is dependent entirely upon the main motion to amend the Bylaws.

For the record, I am very aware that everyone here has me outclassed in RONR procedures,I am very grateful for all of the help. I would not be offended if I was told to take my little questions elsewhere. I do have until the third Tuesday in January to find out for myself. I really don't know the purpose of this form. I was originally linked here from a Q&A page, but if this is an area for well read parliamentarians to discuss the finer points, I probably shouldn't be bothering you. I can imagine what would happen if someone stumbled into my little group just looking for answers with out being able to contribute, they would probably be instructed either politely or otherwise to "lurk moar". I don't know if this is like being at a party and asking for free medical or legal advice when you find out the person sitting next to you is a doctor or lawyer. Or if this was intended to be an educational forum. (good manners in progress)

As is noted in the introduction page linking to the forum, "The Question and Answer Forum is provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised." It serves both as an educational forum and "an area for well read parliamentarians to discuss the finer points." These are not mutually exclusive.

As for anyone asking you to "take [your] little questions elsewhere," I find that highly unlikely. You asked a question regarding the proper interpretation of the rules of RONR (as opposed to your Bylaws or applicable law), your question is not answered in the Frequently Asked Questions or Official Interpretations, and your post displays an understanding of the basic rules of spelling, grammar, and formatting. That already puts you head and shoulders above many of the questioners on this forum. Additionally, based upon the past discussions on the forum on this topic, I would not consider a question regarding scope of notice to be a "little question." :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As is noted in the introduction page linking to the forum, "The Question and Answer Forum is provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised." It serves both as an educational forum and "an area for well read parliamentarians to discuss the finer points." These are not mutually exclusive.

It should be noted that, while the introductory page refers to a "Question and Answer Forum", this site calls itself a Discussion Board and consists of three forums (or fora), one of which is General Discussion. I realize that the powers that be see no difference in the two incarnations but the average visitor may well assume that discussion is acceptable. And, within limits, I think it is. Or should be. No one is pretending to speak for RONR here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks all,

May I add that the vocabulary used by the average poster here far exceeds my usual expectation of message boards.

(in other words I will start to understand the messages you are posting in about 30 min, after I am finished googling their definitions.)

(not kidding I just had to look up seriatim :huh: from the book. I feel like this guy :blink: looks)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I add that the vocabulary used by the average poster here far exceeds my usual expectation of message boards.

(in other words I will start to understand the messages you are posting in about 30 min, after I am finished googling their definitions.)

(not kidding I just had to look up seriatim :huh: from the book. I feel like this guy :blink: looks)

Wait until you start reading the posts of Mr. Tesser. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry but I keep coming back to my "poorly constructed" strategy.

My original idea of keeping with the spirit of the existing bylaw, but adding to it to allow more options for members.

For example from the Dummies version:

A more specific rule takes control when you have a conflict between the specific rule and a more general rule. For example, if your bylaws say that no relatives are permitted at meetings and another individual bylaw says that you can bring your spouse to the annual meeting and barn dance, then be prepared to buy your spouse a new dress or a new tie before the festivities begin.

as stated in the OP I am looking at :

Section 2 - Admission to membership shall be contingent upon membership in either [ABC club] or [The XYZ club] and payment of dues in such organization, and in the [name of my club] .

Why can't I go to pg. 571 line 8 (#3)

A general statement or rule is always of less authority than a specific statement or rule and yeilds to it.

And offer to replace the suggested bylaw as per 297 using guidelines in Proposed amendments beyond the scope of notice.

5

As noted in standard descriptive Characteristics6 [pg 295]above, when previous notice is a requirement for the adoption of a motion to recind or amend something previously adopted, no subsidiarry motion to amend is in order that proposes a change greate4r than which called forwhich notice was given. This is always the case for example, when the bylaws of an organization require previous notice for their amendment which they should do pg (562-63) it will also be the case as a practical matter, whenever a majority isof the entire membership iq not in attendance at the time the vote is taken on a motion to rescind or amend a provision of the constitution or bylaws, or special rule order. in either of the situations described above, no subsidiary motion to amend beyond the scope of notice given. etc...

I sent out notice via our clubs e-mail prior to the vote as well (three pages of well reasoned suggestions for doing so) . Prior to the changes being published in the newsletter that I hoped to drop the requirement. It is the same notice of publication used by the club. Notice was given of the topic was presented in our clubs newsletter prior to the meeting. It didn't outline my changes or the boards. Just that they would be focusing on membership.

Why can't I submit my own bylaw to replace "b" ? along the lines of:

b. A person eligible for membership has paid his club dues and membership dues in either ABC or XYZ, or if a member chooses to opt out of membership in either ABC or XYZ for ethical, religious, personal or financial reasons he or she may demonstrate his or her interst in [The subject material in our club] in order to prove that he is able to show an equal or comparable benefit and development that would have been received from either ABC or XYZ to the [Our club name] as the members who have opted to use membership in ABC or XYZ as a means of demonstrating their development in [the subject matter of our club].

This seems to meet the requirements needed. Am I still missing a key piece of information ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't I go to pg. 571 line 8 (#3)

And offer to replace the suggested bylaw as per 297 using guidelines in Proposed amendments beyond the scope of notice.

You can offer to replace the suggested Bylaw, but interpreting the conflict this will create with the cited Bylaw provision is up to your organization. We don't interpret Bylaws here.

I sent out notice via our clubs e-mail prior to the vote as well (three pages of well reasoned suggestions for doing so) . Prior to the changes being published in the newsletter that I hoped to drop the requirement. It is the same notice of publication used by the club. Notice was given of the topic was presented in our clubs newsletter prior to the meeting. It didn't outline my changes or the boards. Just that they would be focusing on membership.

Why can't I submit my own bylaw to replace "b" ?

You can.

This seems to meet the requirements needed. Am I still missing a key piece of information ?

You are free to propose your own competing amendment, and it appears you have done so. It would have also been in order to propose a substitute to the board's amendment, when that amendment was pending.

It seems the board did a poor job of providing notice, however, so there may be an absentee rights issue here which would make both amendments invalid (yours and the board's). I don't believe the newsletter noting that the changes "would be focusing on membership" satisfies the requirement for notice of a proposed Bylaw amendment. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 577, line 29 - pg. 578, line 11)

It should also be noted that it is not a good idea to intentionally amend the Bylaws to provide a conflict to be resolved by the Principles of Interpretation. These principles are designed to help societies resolve unintended conflicts which arise in the Bylaws. When drafting proposed amendments, great care should be taken to avoid conflict and ambiguity. I maintain that if your desire is to change Section 2, the proper course of action is to amend Section 2, not to seek to "override" it with a clause elsewhere in the Bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to change "b." in Section two. However only a motion to add "a." and then amend "b." was given on this topic. If I want to change "b." in a section is the entire article up for changes as well ? or is it only the section "b." (actually no motion to change bylaws was made or voted on, it was just announced by the board that they had some changes from the board meeting.

Notice was given of the topic was presented in our clubs newsletter prior to the meeting. It didn't outline my changes or the boards. Just that they would be focusing on membership.

Is that really the extent of the notice provided? If so, why do you feel you can only deal with "b" but not with the Section 2 language at the same time? Why is Section 2 off limits?

It seems the board did a poor job of providing notice, however, so there may be an absentee rights issue here which would make both amendments invalid (yours and the board's). I don't believe the newsletter noting that the changes "would be focusing on membership" satisfies the requirement for notice of a proposed Bylaw amendment. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 577, line 29 - pg. 578, line 11)

It should also be noted that it is not a good idea to intentionally amend the Bylaws to provide a conflict to be resolved by the Principles of Interpretation. These principles are designed to help societies resolve unintended conflicts which arise in the Bylaws. When drafting proposed amendments, great care should be taken to avoid conflict and ambiguity. I maintain that if your desire is to change Section 2, the proper course of action is to amend Section 2, not to seek to "override" it with a clause elsewhere in the Bylaws.

Of course, Mr. Martin is probably right that the notice is too vague (and I definitely agree with his closing comment); however, if the notice didn't specifically mention that changes would be made to "b", why isn't it just as proper to amend Section 2 (which focuses on membership) as to amend "b" (which focuses on membership) while you're at it?

I'm assuming it's too late to provide proper notice? The third Tuesday in January (which you mention) is still some time in the future...

For the record, I am very aware that everyone here has me outclassed in RONR procedures,I am very grateful for all of the help. I would not be offended if I was told to take my little questions elsewhere. I do have until the third Tuesday in January to find out for myself. I really don't know the purpose of this form. I was originally linked here from a Q&A page, but if this is an area for well read parliamentarians to discuss the finer points, I probably shouldn't be bothering you. I can imagine what would happen if someone stumbled into my little group just looking for answers with out being able to contribute, they would probably be instructed either politely or otherwise to "lurk moar". I don't know if this is like being at a party and asking for free medical or legal advice when you find out the person sitting next to you is a doctor or lawyer. Or if this was intended to be an educational forum. (good manners in progress)

Please stick around.

The occasional ascerbic remark is just par for the course around here, and you should take it in stride.

And, if you haven't already done so, take a closer look at the footnote on any of Mr. Foulkes' posts. On this forum (whose purpose is to discuss and clarify rules in RONR), discussions about bylaws language must needs be somewhat limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, Mr. Martin is probably right that the notice is too vague (and I definitely agree with his closing comment); however, if the notice didn't specifically mention that changes would be made to "b", why isn't it just as proper to amend Section 2 (which focuses on membership) as to amend "b" (which focuses on membership) while you're at it?

Or in other words, it's just as improper to amend Section 2 as it is to amend "b." :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that really the extent of the notice provided? If so, why do you feel you can only deal with "b" but not with the Section 2 language at the same time? Why is Section 2 off limits?

Of course, Mr. Martin is probably right that the notice is too vague (and I definitely agree with his closing comment); however, if the notice didn't specifically mention that changes would be made to "b", why isn't it just as proper to amend Section 2 (which focuses on membership) as to amend "b" (which focuses on membership) while you're at it?

I'm assuming it's too late to provide proper notice? The third Tuesday in January (which you mention) is still some time in the future...

Please stick around.

The occasional ascerbic remark is just par for the course around here, and you should take it in stride.

And, if you haven't already done so, take a closer look at the footnote on any of Mr. Foulkes' posts. On this forum (whose purpose is to discuss and clarify rules in RONR), discussions about bylaws language must needs be somewhat limited.

No they did specify the changes that they wanted to make via e-mail but bylaws dictate we send it out in the news letter. They are taking the informal route. And I am trying to back up my opposition with a formal route.

Thanks, for the invite to stay. I hope I at least act as a demonstration to you guys of the reasons why the Rules of Order are needed. We all know most people don't know about them and end up thinking they are restrictive and dictatorial, but I am learning that that assumption is the opposite of what the rules are intended for. - UNLESS people think the rules are just a way to get members who know less about the rules to do what they say. (Those later people r stinkrz)

If you only knew some of the message boards I have posted on you would not think that anything said here would offend me, I am worried about offending you guys, not the other way around. but thanks. :)

Although the scope of notice was not given correctly it was done in the fairest conceivable way for our group so I don't want come down on it. Voting to see if you can have a vote, is not going to go over well in our group. It is not to my political advantage in this matter to be a hard-nose. Its like training a puppy, you have to show them you can be firm, but if you do it for more than a few minutes a day the puppy is going to grow into a dog that'll kill you. Our club has grown into a big friendly dog that needs to learn to stop eating the couch.

Our club is a bunch of goofballs that get together once a month for two hours. 10 regular (if you can call them that) meetings a year to have fun, then one meeting is a banquette another other is a Christmas holiday party. We voted for an hour last meeting about 4 issues 6 people maybe cared about one of them. I am more concerned about getting the club active than I am about any other issue, I want them to see how to make changes by voting yea or nea instead of just voting "okay". (baby steps)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, if you haven't already done so, take a closer look at the footnote on any of Mr. Foulkes' posts. On this forum (whose purpose is to discuss and clarify rules in RONR), discussions about bylaws language must needs be somewhat limited.

Oh, Trina. How nice. Thanks.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they did specify the changes that they wanted to make via e-mail but bylaws dictate we send it out in the news letter.

Well, then anything in the e-mail doesn't count for the purposes of providing notice.

Although the scope of notice was not given correctly it was done in the fairest conceivable way for our group so I don't want come down on it. Voting to see if you can have a vote, is not going to go over well in our group. It is not to my political advantage in this matter to be a hard-nose. Its like training a puppy, you have to show them you can be firm, but if you do it for more than a few minutes a day the puppy is going to grow into a dog that'll kill you. Our club has grown into a big friendly dog that needs to learn to stop eating the couch.

Well, I'll just point out that failure to provide proper notice constitutes a continuing breach, so a Point of Order could be raised by any member, even years later. Not everyone may have the mentality of "letting it slide."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, then anything in the e-mail doesn't count for the purposes of providing notice.

I understand that. But truth be known our total revision of bylaws replaced the ones that "didn't really exist" with out proper notice as well. This isn't exactly a chicken or the egg discussion, because we are dealing with a world where neither chickens or eggs exist. (which, makes omelets really gooey. )

Well, I'll just point out that failure to provide proper notice constitutes a continuing breach, so a Point of Order could be raised by any member, even years later. Not everyone may have the mentality of "letting it slide."

So then wut ? do I sick the N.A.P. on them ? :unsure:

I suppose I could tell them I would be justified in sending e-mails for eternity, they really don't like my e-mails. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that. But truth be known our total revision of bylaws replaced the ones that "didn't really exist" with out proper notice as well. This isn't exactly a chicken or the egg discussion, because we are dealing with a world where neither chickens or eggs exist. (which, makes omelets really gooey. )

So then wut ? do I sick the N.A.P. on them ? :unsure:

I suppose I could tell them I would be justified in sending e-mails for eternity, they really don't like my e-mails. :rolleyes:

All I'm saying is that I strongly advise against violating rules when it will create a continuing breach, because even if everyone is fine with ignoring the rules now, it could come back to haunt the assembly if someone changes his mind, particularly if someone decides to take things into the legal arena.

If the assembly ignores my advice on this, no parliamentary police will be knocking on your door, but you should be aware of the potential consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm saying is that I strongly advise against violating rules when it will create a continuing breach, because even if everyone is fine with ignoring the rules now, it could come back to haunt the assembly if someone changes his mind, particularly if someone decides to take things into the legal arena.

If the assembly ignores my advice on this, no parliamentary police will be knocking on your door, but you should be aware of the potential consequences.

That is what I was asking, kinda smugly sorry about that. It wasn't intended to be. So there are possibilities of legal proceedings ? Granted our club probably wouldn't go that far, our dues are $20 per year but hypothetically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there is possibilities of legal proceedings ?

The Bylaws of an organization are in the nature of a contract between its members (or in the case of an incorporated society, between its members and the corporation). As such, violations of the Bylaws could be subject to litigation. Violations of the parliamentary authority could become involved as the parliamentary authority is often stated in the Bylaws. Additionally, there are often state or local laws which have bearing on some types of societies.

I'm not a lawyer, and this is not the appropriate forum to discuss law, so that's about all I have to say on the topic. Suffice it to say that legal action could be taken, but I have no idea what form it would take or how successful it would be. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bylaws of an organization are in the nature of a contract between its members (or in the case of an incorporated society, between its members and the corporation). As such, violations of the Bylaws could be subject to litigation. Violations of the parliamentary authority could become involved as the parliamentary authority is often stated in the Bylaws. Additionally, there are often state or local laws which have bearing on some types of societies.

I'm not a lawyer, and this is not the appropriate forum to discuss law, so that's about all I have to say on the topic. Suffice it to say that legal action could be taken, but I have no idea what form it would take or how successful it would be. :)

I will say I would hate to be on the home owners assoc. board that one of the members of the BoD of our club sits on. And second the motion to not speak further about the topic of legal matters, thank you for not objecting to to the topic's consideration for discussion.

ITT I have learned:

1) You need to vote to change Articles of bylaws as a point of order.

2) The Articles and Sections must be noted at the meeting if they are the only things up for amending otherwise it is a revision(?).

3) Scope of Notice is required with extreme diligence for notification (unless everyone is there, then it is redundant)

4) All specifically noted bylaws are up for alteration at the meeting after notification and nothing else from bylaws.

5) If a section mentioned in the Scope of Notice is to be changed it SHOULD NOT be changed to contradict another section, but there is no rule against it, it is a bad idea and bad form. (my question from the OP)

6) It is best to amend a section prior to a contradiction being offered.

7) 8 rules of interpreting a bylaw.

8) Bylaws are assumed to have a purpose for being put in the bylaws, even if that purpose is unknown.

9) When you find a contradiction the best action to take is to fix it ASAP.

10)If #3 is handled incorectly continuing is pointless because the vote doesn't count, and at anytime in the future people could bring it up.

Do these things seem generally correct ? Because things are starting to make sense if they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do these things seem generally correct ?

They may seem generally correct but the devil is in the details and generalizations can often lead one astray. For example, there is frequently some confusion about what constitutes a revision of the bylaws. Many focus on the extent of the proposed changes when the significance of a proposed revision is all about the notice. When you give notice of a proposed revision, you remove the scope-of-the-notice restriction. The end result may be very few changes in the bylaws but, by giving notice of a revision, anything in the bylaws is subject to amendment. Conversely, notice of proposed amendments can include extensive changes without being notice of a revision. In that case, the scope of the notice may be broad but it still imposes limitations.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean when you say (#1) that "you need to vote to change Articles of bylaws as a point of order.". On it's face it's simply not true (but perhaps you intended something different). A motion to amend the bylaws is an ordinary main motion, not a point of order.

There are not eight "rules" for interpreting bylaws, RONR simply provides some suggestions for interpreting bylaws (and any other rules). These are, for the most part, statements of common sense and logic. The list is not meant to be exhaustive (though I think it covers most main issues).

So while there are some general principles of parliamentary procedures (e.g. the rights of members and absentees), you need only spend a little time on this forum to see that the devil is in the details. It's not that the big picture is not important, but that's not the focus of the parliamentarian's eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...