Quote:
Originally Posted by emb021
Should I go on?
|
LOL, no you don't need to. I believe you. Like I said, though, every organization of any size of which I am part that I can think of has two documents. Since this is GC, I'll note that my Fraternity has a Constitution and General Regulations (bylaws).
Quote:
IMO, simplicity.
Too much of a problem to have to amend both, when it is easier to combine into a single document.
|
See, this is where I'm having problems with the rationale. It's
supposed to be difficult to amend a constitution; bylaws should be easier to amend. The idea is that a constitution contains those basic, framework aspects of an organization -- name, purpose, basic structure, etc. -- that the group considers foundational to who they are and how they function. The whole idea is that a simple majority present and voting at any given meeting should not, for example, be able to change the name or purpose of the organization. That's why super-majorities and, perhaps, ratification by constituent groups is required -- to make sure that there is widespread buy-in on a change of such of significance. That's why I would have a problem with just having bylaws.
Quote:
|
I'm going to have to run your definition of constitutions and bylaws by my professional parliamentarian friends and see what they think.
|
I'd be interested (noting, of course, that parliamentary procedure first developed in a system without a written constitution
).