What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York
Not sure if this is the right forum, but here goes:
I belong to a music appreciation group, a not-for-profit. The Board of Directors suddenly decided to "clarify" the bylaws, just before an election, which made two of the three candidates running for President ineligible. The bylaws clearly state that any changes must be approved by the membership. They claim that they are not making a change, just clarifying an existing point.
The point of contention is what constitutes a member in good standing. The two now ineligible candidates did not pay dues, as they were the current President and Vice-President, and had donated both time and money but did not actually pay dues as such. In the fifteen years of the organization, officers traditionally didn't pay dues because they did so much else. Nowhere in the bylaws did it state that to be a member in good standing you had to pay dues. The BOD claims the "intent" was there, and they were just clarifying it.
Is there any kind of ruling that would cover this? Seems to me that if you "clarify" a bylaw to such a degree that it changes the choices for an election, you're actually changing the bylaws. BTW - I'm not one of the candidates. A good friend of mine is, and he really got shafted on this. I'd like to know if this Board did an end run, or if what they did was acceptable.
Thanks very much for any input. I could not find anything about this despite many Google variations on terms.
Not sure if this is the right forum, but here goes:
I belong to a music appreciation group, a not-for-profit. The Board of Directors suddenly decided to "clarify" the bylaws, just before an election, which made two of the three candidates running for President ineligible. The bylaws clearly state that any changes must be approved by the membership. They claim that they are not making a change, just clarifying an existing point.
The point of contention is what constitutes a member in good standing. The two now ineligible candidates did not pay dues, as they were the current President and Vice-President, and had donated both time and money but did not actually pay dues as such. In the fifteen years of the organization, officers traditionally didn't pay dues because they did so much else. Nowhere in the bylaws did it state that to be a member in good standing you had to pay dues. The BOD claims the "intent" was there, and they were just clarifying it.
Is there any kind of ruling that would cover this? Seems to me that if you "clarify" a bylaw to such a degree that it changes the choices for an election, you're actually changing the bylaws. BTW - I'm not one of the candidates. A good friend of mine is, and he really got shafted on this. I'd like to know if this Board did an end run, or if what they did was acceptable.
Thanks very much for any input. I could not find anything about this despite many Google variations on terms.