Can Bylaws be waived for a decision?

[jrice]

Can an elected official temporarily waive the adopted bylaws for a particular decision?

[hmtcastle]

Can an elected official temporarily waive the adopted bylaws for a particular decision?

No.

[Chris Harrison]

Can an elected official temporarily waive the adopted bylaws for a particular decision?

Not unless the bylaws grant such authority.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Can an elected official temporarily waive the adopted bylaws for a particular decision?

No.

Of course not.

That is quite the question! -- I was imagining a new secretary waiving the bylaw requirement that (for example) officers be members of the organization, or that dues be paid, so that he can get a free ride for a year or two.

That would quite a power, to set aside a bylaw because you don't like it!

"Yeow!"

Q. Do you have a president or a treasurer who wants to waive the ethics requirement, or the fiduciary requirement, in your bylaws?

[jrice]

Not unless the bylaws grant such authority.

Thank you for your response. Our Bylaws do not specifically grant that authority, but does refer to the Robert's Rules in the event "something" isn't directly stated within them. If Robert's Rules don't offer that, then I understand it is not okay.

I do appreciate the knowledge sharing on this site. I refer to it often.

[jrice]

No.

Of course not.

That is quite the question! -- I was imagining a new secretary waiving the bylaw requirement that (for example) officers be members of the organization, or that dues be paid, so that he can get a free ride for a year or two.

That would quite a power, to set aside a bylaw because you don't like it!

"Yeow!"

Q. Do you have a president or a treasurer who wants to waive the ethics requirement, or the fiduciary requirement, in your bylaws?

It's quite an interesting issue. It has to do with a quorum matter. One official said he has seen it done often and could easily waive the Bylaws for the matter. I was shocked too.

[Robert B Fish]

One official said...

Ask him to state his source. If he says it's in RONR, ask where. Ditto with the bylaws. If he can't cite a source, mark his comment up to another of a long list of old wives tales.

-Bob

[Josh Martin]

It's quite an interesting issue. It has to do with a quorum matter. One official said he has seen it done often and could easily waive the Bylaws for the matter. I was shocked too.

Quorum requirements may not be waived, not even by unanimous consent, and certainly not by a single official. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 337, lines 14-16) If a quorum requirement could be waived, it would defeat the purpose.

[Rev Ed]

With the exception of the Board and Committees (which quorum generally a majority of members, and should remain so), quorum should be set at a number that is reasonably expected to attend. For example, if an organization that has 1000 members spread across the country, a quorum of 25% may be too high. However, for a Homeowners Association 25% may be quite reasonable.

[Rob Elsman]

With the exception of the Board and Committees (which quorum generally a majority of members, and should remain so), quorum should be set at a number that is reasonably expected to attend. For example, if an organization that has 1000 members spread across the country, a quorum of 25% may be too high. However, for a Homeowners Association 25% may be quite reasonable.

...and should remain so...

RONR doesn't say anything of the sort. Take a look at RONR (10th ed.), p. 336, ll. 9-22.

[Josh Martin]

RONR doesn't say anything of the sort. Take a look at RONR (10th ed.), p. 336, ll. 9-22.

Agreed. While a majority of the membership is the default quorum for a board or committee, nothing in RONR suggests that it would be ill-advised to lower this. Even some boards and committees may have difficulty obtaining such a quorum, especially considering that not all boards and committees fall under the category of small boards and committees. A large board of a national or international organization, for instance, may need a lower quorum than a majority.

[hmtcastle]

With the exception of the Board and Committees (which quorum generally a majority of members, and should remain so) . . .

I think it could be argued that a majority is too low a quorum requirement for a board and, in any event, by establishing it as the default, I don't think RONR is necessarily recommending it. So, as Mr. Elsman notes, there's no "should" there.

[hmtcastle]

Agreed. While a majority of the membership is the default quorum for a board or committee, nothing in RONR suggests that it would be ill-advised to lower this.

I find it interesting that, just as I was suggesting that a majority quorum might be too low for a board, Mr. Martin suggested that it might be too high. At least we both agree that RONR is not recommending either.

[Josh Martin]

I find it interesting that, just as I was suggesting that a majority quorum might be too low for a board, Mr. Martin suggested that it might be too high. At least we both agree that RONR is not recommending either.

Well, together we have both possibilities covered. I suspect we just interpreted Rev Ed's comment differently. I am in complete agreement that in many cases, a quorum of a majority may be too low for a board.

[Gary Novosielski]

I find it interesting that, just as I was suggesting that a majority quorum might be too low for a board, Mr. Martin suggested that it might be too high. At least we both agree that RONR is not recommending either.

I think it's just right.