A Review of the Proposed Revision to the RCSC Bylaws by Tom Marone I really do hate to criticize the Ad Hoc committee because I’m sure they put a lot of time and effort into their considerations. However, it’s kind of clear, at least to me, that some were lacking in their knowledge regarding the parliamentary authority that the bylaws are mandated to comply with. First of all, two guiding principles when writing or revising the bylaws are these: 1. Say it once; say it clearly; and say it in the right place. It’s not a good practice or advisable to repeat the same provisions in more than one place within the same document. This is in part to avoid the problems that can be caused by later amending a provision in one place but not making the same change in the others. 2. It’s not necessary to repeat in your bylaws something that already is included in RONR. Let’s take a look at the proposed bylaw revision: ARTICLE I –THE CORPORATION - SECTION 3: PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY If you understand Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) the proposed statement in the revised bylaws could be half as long if they were simply to have used the recommended verbiage stated in RONR. ARTICLE II – MEMBERSHIP, CARDHOLDERS AND GUESTS I’m not even going to get into that hornet’s nest only to comment that I believe the differences in qualifications between who’s a Member, who’s a Cardholder, who’s a Qualified Owner and who’s an Unqualified Owner can be better summarized. If you don’t meet the qualifications to be an Owner doesn’t that automatically make you an Unqualified Owner? I believe it would take a great effort to go thru and summarize those definitions but believe it could be done. ARTICLE III, Sections 4 & 5, INCIDENT REPORTS and ARTICLE VI, Section 5 DISCIPLINARY AND REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS. Don’t you think it would be better if those procedures were all listed under one Article titled DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES? One Section could apply to Members and a separate section could apply to the board of directors. I won’t get into the actual procedures! As far as amending the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws; if the Bylaws were to have its own Article on how to amend them, as recommended in RONR, it would eliminate the duplication of the same provisions in other places. The provisions of notice for the proposed amendments are duplicated in four separate places. (See Article IV, Section 1 & 2) Rules covering the call of a meeting initiated by a petition are duplicated in two locations. Rather than duplicating the provision, there should simply be a reference instructing the reader to go to the Article within the Bylaws regarding petitions and petition rules. (See Article IV, Section 2 & Article IX, Section 4, D-1)
