[Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus proposal: renaming member categories

davidfine d at vidfine.com
Mon Dec 9 19:33:31 UTC 2013


Run it by someone with a law degree. If someone can argue that they were
led to believe they were a "member", the legal system may side with them
despite our fine print. That's all.
--D

On 12/9/13, 10:29 AM, Tom Lowenthal wrote:
> On 9 December 2013 10:05, davidfine <d at vidfine.com> wrote:
>> We don't actually get to decide what it means to be a "member" in a 501c3
>> non-profit organization. There is state law and legal precedent, and
>> "member" is word with special legal meaning. We can't change the name just
>> because we like the sound of it. This was all hashed out when the membership
>> process was created and should not be dismantled without good reason and
>> legal aid.
>> --David
> Actually, we do. Section 6.3 of our bylaws specifically allows that
> "This corporation may refer other persons or entities associated with
> it as "members," even though those persons or entities are not voting
> members.". That is exactly what I'm proposing. Based on my research,
> it seems to be a relatively common (but by no means universal)
> practice among California non-profits.
> -Tom
>



More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list