Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'revision'.
Found 4 results
Assume: Bylaws require only previous notice of amendment, without limitation of the period within which it must be acted upon (i.e., ordinary Robertian notice; no readings; no delays). Assume: In January, the general membership creates a Bylaw Committee. The charge of the Bylaws Committee is to create a full revision of the bylaws. The general membership fixes a "rush" deadline for the final report of the Bylaws Committee -- namely, the next regular meeting (February). Question: May the general membership act upon (adopt!) the revision in the February meeting (i.e., the same meeting as the final report of the Bylaws Committee)?
Our organization has about 45 members, an 8 member board of directors consisting of 4 officers plus 4 additional board members. Our bylaws include the statement. “All business shall be conducted in accordance with Roberts’ Rules Newly Revised.” Our board of directors, at its own initiative, is in process of rewriting the organization bylaws. The intent is to replace current bylaws completely. The “committee” doing the rewriting was selected by the board of directors to be “members of board of directors only” – Is the committee member selection in compliance with RONR? (Committee selection appears to be in conflict with Chapter XVIII Page 566 lines 24 – 32. Page 593 line 19 indicates that the “completely rewritten bylaws” should be called a “revision”.) Assuming committee member selection is not in compliance, how can an objection be raised? Assuming an objection can be made, is the objection enough to prevent a “vote to approve” for the revision? Thank you for your help Richard Kaiser
What notice is required when it is proposed that a Bylaws Convention be held to revise the Bylaws? Is it required that members be given copies of the proposed revised bylaws in advance of the "Convention"? Or, are members just notified that there will be a Bylaws Convention to revise the bylaws, and the "Convention" itself is actually a "free for all" where anything can happen to the bylaws without notice to the membership, except for those present at the "convention"?
A speaker has stated something that could be misleading, although minor in risk if not clarified, but would be advantageous to clarify. Can the Minutes be written to reflect the clarification? For instance, the speaker noted that an employee had part-time duties for a particular responsibility. However, in actuality, the responsibility for that activity is one element of their full-time job and as such, has full responsibility to administer the activity. It is not part-time dedication. If left un-clarified, it could be interpreted that the employee was only a part-time employee tasked with the activity, or had only part-time efforts dedicated to the responsibility. Thank you!