Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
Who makes this recommendation? I can tell you that no organization of any size that I am connected with follows has bylaws only. While I see your point on "countries have constitutions, organizations have bylaws," I don't know that I agree with it. (Especially since, as I said, every organization I am connected with has both.  ) |
Pick up a copy of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. It states that it used to be the practice to have 2 docs: a constitution and a set of bylaws. But groups found that unwealdy and went to one doc first called constitution & bylaws, and then just bylaws. All works from parliamentary groups recommend the use of just bylaws. And that's what they cover. You'll see templates for bylaws and such, but I don't recall anything on the use of constitutions.
Let's see. My fraternity has a National Bylaws. We went from having a constitution and bylaws at our Constituational Convention back in the 60s. We also expect only bylaws from our Chapters.
Both the National Association of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians only have National Bylaws and expect their chapters to have just a set of bylaws.
Toastmasters International has just Bylaws.
In fact, I don't think any of the organizations I'm a member of has a separate constitution and bylaws. One has a single document called constitution and bylaws, but that's it.
Should I go on?
Yes, there are still orgs out there who use separate consitutions and bylaws. In most cases they are orgs have been around before the 1960s or so. But current practice, as reflected by the materials put out by the national parliamentary organizations are to just have bylaws.
Quote:
|
So what is the suggested benefit of having bylaws only?
|
IMO, simplicity.
Too much of a problem to have to amend both, when it is easier to combine into a single document.
I'm going to have to run your definition of constitutions and bylaws by my professional parliamentarian friends and see what they think.
Threaded Mode
