Sorority By-Laws and when there are exceptions

[fantASTic]

I would think that this would be something that the chapter should vote on.

The girl could always make a motion to do so; i.e., "I move to allow the chapter to vote on whether to allow X to run for president." They would then vote - if the chapter approves the motion, the chapter then must vote on whether she is eligible or not.

It's foolproof - they cannot tell you no if the chapter votes to do it.

[emb021]

Some comments from a parliamentarian.

It's "Bylaws". One word, no hyphen.

You really can't suspend your bylaws. You can suspend certain items, but they must be of a purly procedural item. Not sure if this one (requirement to run for office) is something you can suspend. Is it being suspended for ALL candidates, or just one person? Sounds to me like an exception is being made for one person, but not another, which is unfair.

The purpose of having a nominating committee is to ensure you have a complete slate of candidate for all offices. And candiates need to meet certain criteria, they shouldn't be putting them up as candidates. Your org SHOULD still allow for additional nominations from the floor, and write-ins should also be allowed. Elections should be by secret ballot, with votes for each office. (ie, you don't vote in the entire slate).

Your bylaws should clearly set down how to conduct elections (your parent org may also have policies that set things out a certain way). These procedures will always superseded what is stated in Robert's (Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised is the current version).

Hope this helps.

[emb021]

The following statement was made on the forum of the Official Robert's Rules site:

"Bylaws may never be "put aside". Certain rules (even if contained in the bylaws) may be suspended but rules regarding eligibility for office are not among them."

AFAIK, your advisor has no power to overrule your bylaws. Not certain about your parent org.

A better idea would be to put such a policy in your standing rules, which can more easily be suspended or gotten rid of if your chapter is in need of doing so.

[Senusret I]

If, of course, the org's parliamentary authority is in fact Robert's Rules of Order

[emb021]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

If, of course, the org's parliamentary authority is in fact Robert's Rules of Order

I think most parliamentary authorities would probably say the same thing.

Most of the major parliamentary authorites agree on the basics (common parliamentary law), but different on some of the details. Suspention of bylaws would be something basic and fundamental.

A mistake many people make is thinking the different PA are very different (comparing 'apples to oranges' if you will), when they are fairly similiar (more like comparing different types of apples).

(course, don't have my copies of them right here at hand to quote you).

Also, about 90% of orgs use RONR. Second most popular is The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (TSC).

[Senusret I]

Jeez, I was just being playful, bro.

[emb021]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Jeez, I was just being playful, bro.

I was not offended by your comment.

I was replying mainly for the benefit of others who may not have a very good understanding of parliamentary procedure and the like.

Having some experience trying to teach parly pro to high school & college kids who have some very poor understanding/misunderstanding of it, you get use to having to some strange ideas out there... (or should that be ?)

[LΩVE]

I can speak from my experience here on selective memories regarding chapter by-laws. I'll just say it isn't unheard of for adults to play politics, too, and sometimes a favorite candidate might get a leg up on a technicality. It is dishonest, based on what you've told us, and it is suspicious, but at this point, unfair as it is, there isn't much that can be done. If the chapter chose this girl as their president it might cause even MORE bad feelings and more damage to take that decision back. Chances are many of them are oblivious to these rules if they have never been on EC themselves, and don't really realize what's going on. Maybe this girl will be a good president, but if not, those in charge have only themselves to blame for letting her run with less experience. The situation should probably just be left to die. I hope the girls that feel slighted will be able to push their feelings aside so that this won't ruin their experience. It's a hard thing to do, but in the long run it will probably all be ok, and they will be happier members if they let it roll off of their backs.

[Kansas City]

I think that we might be taking the OP’s questions a bit out of context. Most of us are not in this chapter and cannot tell for sure what the actual written by-laws of this specific chapter are. This being said, perhaps the slated president’s one semester of experience equates to “one year on exec” and could perhaps be perfectly in line with the by-laws established and voted on by the chapter. In the end, I don’t think that it really matters who was on the slating committee or what decisions were actually made since (as I said earlier) it is just a recommendation and not a guarantee to hold office. The chapter will select who they deem to be the best president and will then have to live with their decisions. I really got the feeling that the OP just really wanted to complain about her friend’s daughter not getting slated but in the grand scheme of chapter operations, does not slating this individual really make a difference? I trust that the slating committee made the best decision with the information that was available to them and it is now the chapter’s responsibility to consider the slate and then make up their own minds and vote for the best candidate.

[sarahsmilehawk]

The outgoing president of my sorority had never served in an exec position when she was slated. Nobody who had been on exec wanted to be president, and most of them were seniors anyway. So the advisers got together and chose our fall formal chair.

[emb021]

From my experience, chapters (and any group for that matter) need to be very careful about eligability requirements for officers (X amount of time in the org, certain positions must be held to be eligable for others, etc).

What might seem like a good idea when your chapter/org is large and there are many people who meet the requirements and are willing to run, can be a stranglehold on the org if you suddenly face a sitution where no one is eligable to run for all or certain officers.

A compromise would be that if your chapter insists on having such eligability requirements, that you put them in your standing rules and NOT your bylaws. This way you can suspend them if they are in your standing rules and do so at that meeting, whereas you can't supsend them if they are in your bylaws, and if you want to remove them, that will require amending your bylaws, which should be a non-trivial matter and will (and should) take some time.