Amending Bylaws Seriatim

[Guest Carl Guest]

As I have discussed regarding other specifics, our association is amending, not revising, its bylaws.  There are many proposed amendments throughout the document. We have been advised that the amendments should be considered seriatum. We have also been advised that after discussing and possibly amending each proposed amendment within scope, "no final vote is taken on the article at this time because an article or section not discussed yet may affect the action on this one." Therefore, as in revision, the entire document will be voted up or down by 2/3 at the end of the process.   

 

There seem to be three or four sections/articles that are troublesome and could cause the entire document to be voted down, doing it as suggested. My questions are:

 

1-What are the mechanics that enable seriatum in the first place.....that is to ask is there a motion made to consider seriatum and the body votes on it?

 

2-Is there a parliamentary path to considering these three or four problematic sections separately from the rest of the document? Perhaps either pulling them out or voting on those problematics separately rather than under the entire document umbrella?

 

 

[Josh Martin]

There seem to be three or four sections/articles that are troublesome and could cause the entire document to be voted down, doing it as suggested.

 

Couldn't you just amend the troublesome parts?

 

1-What are the mechanics that enable seriatum in the first place.....that is to ask is there a motion made to consider seriatum and the body votes on it?

 

2-Is there a parliamentary path to considering these three or four problematic sections separately from the rest of the document? Perhaps either pulling them out or voting on those problematics separately rather than under the entire document umbrella?

 

You have a series of individual amendments, which will apparently all be offered in a single motion. A motion for seriatim consideration is in order. Since these are amendments on unrelated subjects, such a motion requires unanimous consent for adoption. A single member may demand to pull one or more amendments for separate consideration. After seriatim consideration has been adopted, this may no longer be done. Therefore, when the motion for seriatim consideration is pending, it would be advisable for the chair to point out that this would be the time for members to make requests to pull amendments for separate consideration.

 

See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 274-277.

[Guest Carl Guest]

(Couldn't you just amend the troublesome parts?)

We are under the notice of scope rules. Correcting them properly is out of the range of scope.

 

(You have a series of individual amendments, which will apparently all be offered in a single motion. A motion for seriatim consideration is in order)

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

We began our meeting last week and continued it until this weekend, after going about 1/5 of the way through the document. The President cited the bylaws cover letter in which he read the parlimentarian's recommendation as follows: "The amendments should be considered seriatim (article by article)...Each article is discussed and may be amended [within the scope of the proposed changes] by primary and secondary amendment.  This means that the proposed wording may be amended, followed by an amendment to this amendment. No further amendments may be made until the amendment to the amendment is adopted or defeated, then the first (primary) amendment, as amended, is adopted or defeated. These amendments require a majority vote.  No final vote is taken on the article at this time because an article or section not discussed yet may affect the action on this one." 

After citing the above, the president proceeded to allow discussion, of which there was a great deal. There were some objections the process. After thirty minutes, the president stated that we had had enough discussion and that we would proceed with the parliamentarian's recommendation and the body began to take up the proposed amendments. No motion of any kind was made at this point. My question here would be, did we need a motion to proceed at this point with this process described by the parliamentarian? Did we need a motion of any kind at this point to proceed with consideration of the amendments?

 

After Articles 1 and 2 had been discussed and amended, a recognized member moved to submit for final approval in a vote requiring 2/3 of the members present, Articles 1 and 2. The motion was ruled out of order. We then moved further into the document for some time and then moved to fix the time of adjournment and fixed a date to continue the meeting. Was that motion above calling for the 2/3 vote out of order? 

 

Does the quotation from the parliamentarian lead you to any other conclusions or advice other than what you've given? What do you believe is the most constructive parliamentary path to proceed? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bruce Lages]

1-What are the mechanics that enable seriatum in the first place.....that is to ask is there a motion made to consider seriatum and the body votes on it?

 

 

Since you say that there are many proposed amendments within the overall proposal, the chair can, on his own initiative choose to proceed with consideration seriatim (RONR, 11th ed., p. 277, l.33 - p. 278, l.7). If the assembly doesn't wish to do this, any member can move to "consider as a whole". That does not seem to be a good idea in your case for the reasons you have cited.

 

 

2-Is there a parliamentary path to considering these three or four problematic sections separately from the rest of the document? Perhaps either pulling them out or voting on those problematics separately rather than under the entire document umbrella?

 

It seems to me that this is pretty much what you will be doing by considering seriatim. As Mr. Martin suggested, you will have the opportunity to perfect these problematic sections one at a time by the amendment process before you end up considering the entire proposal. And just make sure that everyone understands that the primary/secondary amendment process described by your parliamentarian can be repeated any number of times (although with certain restrictions) until a majority of the assembly is satisfied with those sections

 

(Couldn't you just amend the troublesome parts?)

We are under the notice of scope rules. Correcting them properly is out of the range of scope.

 

 

This seems to have carried over from your previous thread, but the phrase in RONR is 'scope of notice', not 'notice of scope'. It applies to any motion for which previous notice is required (or given). And there are likely to be many amendments that could be made to the troublesome parts without exceeding the scope of notice.

 

 

(You have a series of individual amendments, which will apparently all be offered in a single motion. A motion for seriatim consideration is in order)

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

 My question here would be, did we need a motion to proceed at this point with this process described by the parliamentarian? Did we need a motion of any kind at this point to proceed with consideration of the amendments?

 

 

As noted above, for a situation like this, the chair can proceed to consideration by seriatim (which is the process your parliamentarian described) on his own accord. No motion is necessary. If the chair does not do this, any member then could move to consider seriatim. Note that this would occur after the overall proposal had been moved by whoever introduced it.

 

 

After Articles 1 and 2 had been discussed and amended, a recognized member moved to submit for final approval in a vote requiring 2/3 of the members present, Articles 1 and 2. The motion was ruled out of order. We then moved further into the document for some time and then moved to fix the time of adjournment and fixed a date to continue the meeting. Was that motion above calling for the 2/3 vote out of order? 

 

Does the quotation from the parliamentarian lead you to any other conclusions or advice other than what you've given? What do you believe is the most constructive parliamentary path to proceed? 

 

I'm not sure about this, but I believe it was probably proper to rule that motion out of order. What would you have done if those two articles were accepted for final approval, and then amendments were made to subsequent articles that conflicted with the already adopted Articles 1 and 2? That could have been very messy to say the least.

 

It still seems to me that consideration seriatim is the most constructive parliamentary path by which to proceed.

[Guest Carl Guest]

As noted above, for a situation like this, the chair can proceed to consideration by seriatim (which is the process your parliamentarian described) on his own accord. No motion is necessary. If the chair does not do this, any member then could move to consider seriatim. Note that this would occur after the overall proposal had been moved by whoever introduced it.

 

So to be clear, you are saying that there does need to be something moved at the beginning, like the chair or secretary moving to adopt the document (bylaws), something. We had nothing. The chair, after discussion then proceeded with the first article's proposed amendments. It simply seems like something is missing. It cannot be that one simply starts taking about an article, disciussing and accepting proposed amendments to the amendments. And as a result we are in the process of seriatum and we cannot stop it? That is not reasonable.

 

Additionally, what if we wait until the end of all discussion and amendments to the proposed amendments, and then, at that point a recognized member moves to consider only a certain group of articles for final 2/3 pass/fail and other articles to be vote on separately. All of this after we have gone through the entire document. The problem of final voting on a single article before other articles have been discussed is no longer there. Would that work?

[Josh Martin]

(Couldn't you just amend the troublesome parts?)

We are under the notice of scope rules. Correcting them properly is out of the range of scope.

 

Changing something back to exactly the way it was is undoubtedly within the range of scope, which would be exactly the same result as voting those parts down separately. You can come up with better language at a future date.

 

No motion of any kind was made at this point. My question here would be, did we need a motion to proceed at this point with this process described by the parliamentarian? Did we need a motion of any kind at this point to proceed with consideration of the amendments? 

 

In this case, I think a motion would have been preferable, but no one objected at the time, so it's probably too late now.

 

After Articles 1 and 2 had been discussed and amended, a recognized member moved to submit for final approval in a vote requiring 2/3 of the members present, Articles 1 and 2. The motion was ruled out of order. We then moved further into the document for some time and then moved to fix the time of adjournment and fixed a date to continue the meeting. Was that motion above calling for the 2/3 vote out of order? 

 

Yes.

 

Does the quotation from the parliamentarian lead you to any other conclusions or advice other than what you've given? What do you believe is the most constructive parliamentary path to proceed? 

 

Amend the troublesome parts.

 

So to be clear, you are saying that there does need to be something moved at the beginning, like the chair or secretary moving to adopt the document (bylaws), something. We had nothing. The chair, after discussion then proceeded with the first article's proposed amendments. It simply seems like something is missing. It cannot be that one simply starts taking about an article, disciussing and accepting proposed amendments to the amendments. And as a result we are in the process of seriatum and we cannot stop it? That is not reasonable.

 

Yes, the proper procedure was for someone to actually make a motion to adopt the amendments. The chair may propose seriatim consideration on his own initiative (although I'm not sure that's advisable in a situation like this), and that's the time for members to instead propose consideration as a whole or pulling amendments for separate consideration. At this point, I don't think a Point of Order on either subject would be timely.

 

Additionally, what if we wait until the end of all discussion and amendments to the proposed amendments, and then, at that point a recognized member moves to consider only a certain group of articles for final 2/3 pass/fail and other articles to be vote on separately. All of this after we have gone through the entire document. The problem of final voting on a single article before other articles have been discussed is no longer there. Would that work?

 

No, such a motion is not in order.

[Gary c Tesser]

[Josh Martin:]

(You have a series of individual amendments, which will apparently all be offered in a single motion. A motion for seriatim consideration is in order)

[Guest Carl Guest:]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

... Does the quotation from the parliamentarian lead you to any other conclusions or advice other than what you've given? What do you believe is the most constructive parliamentary path to proceed? 

 

 

... We have been advised that the amendments should be considered seriatum.... Therefore, as in revision, the entire document will be voted up or down by 2/3 at the end of the process.   

 

... 2-Is there a parliamentary path to considering these three or four problematic sections separately from the rest of the document? Perhaps either pulling them out or voting on those problematics separately rather than under the entire document umbrella?

 

It may be that the parlimentarian knew the answer to the question I'm going to ask; if not, I think he got it haywire.  Ordinarily, a pile (or "bunch," if you prefer a term of art) of separate bylaw amendment proposals are considered separately, because they are separate.  Because of possible conflicts, the presiding officer should present them in a logical order, to avoid such.  Each is considered separately and voted on separately, because they are separate. OK?  They are not considered as a unit any more than if the agenda includes a motion to paint the clubhouse and a motion and a motion to elect somebody to membership.

 

Now, it is possible to make an umbrella motion to adopt several motions at once.  (Along the lines of, "I move to adopt the following resolutions*:  to paint the clubhouse and to admit Rick Santorum to membership in our Socialist Labor Party local.") But without the active act of combining the two motions, they of course are considered separately.  Because they are separate!  Like your bylaw amendment!  -- unless I'm wrong and everyone else is right, which is the way to bet, but I'm not gonna.

 

That's what I think Mr Martin inferred when he said "a series of individual amendments, which will apparently all be offered in a single motion."  It's also the impression that the usually circumspectly canny Bruce Lages got (he said, "Since you say that there are many proposed amendments within the overall proposal, ...").

 

But that's not the way I see what went down.  You had a pile of separate bylaw amendment proposals; quite possibly, they were proposed by several individuals, not just one; but someone assumed, or decided, to consider them as a unit, or decided that you were supposed to consider them as a unit, and everybody obligingly -- but mistakenly -- fell into line.  AS the third and fourth sentences of your opening post say, "We were advised"  and "We were further advised."  (Who in sam hill advised you, and based on what??!?)

 

But as I read what you said, that's not so!  As you said more than once, there wasn't even any motion!

 

The thing about considering seriatim is, it is about looking at a large document piece by piece, for clarity's and simplicity's sake.  If those many amendments were not put together in a deliberate conscious action, then they are still separate, and must be considered separately, and all this folderol about considering seriatim is moot, if not nonsense.

 

So, Guest Carl Guest, which is it?  (You were there, none of us here on the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum were, however devoutly we would have wished to be.)

________

*Please, know-it-alls, no quibbles.

[Guest Carl Guest]

The thing about considering seriatim is, it is about looking at a large document piece by piece, for clarity's and simplicity's sake. If those many amendments were not put together in a deliberate conscious action, then they are still separate, and must be considered separately, and all this folderol about considering seriatim is moot, if not nonsense.

Your helpful and entertaining reply is appreciated. Our bylaws have been worked on over several years by two different committees, our Board and our attorney. The committees and board have several but not all.....people in common. The final proposed amended bylaws were sent out as a 650 line, 13 Article (each with several sections) 23 page document with our required 25 day notice. The bylaws contained the original document with the changes underlined, and anything dropped wth a single line through it. In the margins on the right there are some comments of note on a particular section. It is laid out in standard RR order.

So, Guest Carl Guest, which is it? (You were there, none of us here on the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum were, however devoutly we would have wished to be.)

Perhaps the answer, boringly, is both. Normally amended articles are taken up separately. Because of the many changes it was thought of by some that it was a revision. It's not. But because of the many changes even RR states that if you have many changes they suggests consider them seriatim. The few problem articles are separate. The membership section and the board's committees sections are separate subject matter and in article numbers. RR states that if you proceed in proper order, you shouldn't have a problem voting each article as you go through them.

Mr Martin states, I think a motion would have been preferable, but no one objected at the time, so it's probably too late now.

More than one or two members objected to or clearly questioned the correctness or wisdom of the discussed process. But after some discussion the chair said it was time to move on and yes we then sat and listened......for some uncomfortably so. Then, quoting the minutes, " the Vice President moved that a committee be formed and authorized to correct article and section designation, punctuation,and cross references and to make other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the intent of the association in connection with these bylaw amendments. The motion was seconded. None were opposed." At that point we began discussing article 1 section 1. Why would a motion only be preferable? Why would a motion to move the bylaws or consider seriatim or move whatever, not be required at this point? The vote on seriatum would not have been unanimous. Or even close to that. How can we be moving in any correct parliamentary rule fashion when no one moved anything at all?

[Gary c Tesser]

Some preliminary thoughts.

 

1. Guest_Carl Guest.  Please, if stuff posted previously, in another thread, may be pertinent, start with giving its URL.  There's no guarantees that anyone will read it, but maybe some will, as I have for the past half hour.

 

For example, your previous thread's URL was:

http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/22928-using-scope-for-bylaws-changes/ .

 

-- But I had to go iffily searching for "Carl Guest."  C'mon.  I got a finite lifespan.  And so does most others.

 

2.  If you don't want to use the Quote feature on this website, or if you can't figure it out (took me a while), or just find it too cumbersome and/or exasperating (count me in! ), then pleae, please, if you're quoting someone, just put it in quotation marks.  Your interspersing quotations with your own words has been confusing to me, at least, no end, and remember, I'm on your side.

For now.

 

3.  Note this.

J. Martin, earlier thread ("Using scope for ..."), post 8, 17 August 2014:

"You seem to be trying to mix and match the rules for a revision and for individual amendments, which either suggests that your assembly has special rules on this subject, or you're simply doing it wrong...."

 

As of now, 5 AM Friday EDT, your group is still doing it.

 

4.  Guest Carl Guest, earlier thread,post 10, 17 Aug:

"...with Revision every word is on the table,..."

 

Please, try to avoid this usage, even if you're Canadian, at least when talking with American parliamentarians (or aspiring parliamentarians like me) --  "the table" refers to the secretary's table, which is where things that we are NOT discussing reside, since we have "tabled" them, which means, laid them on the secretary's table, which is 18th-Century American English, or current Canadian, for "desk".  This not a rebuke, even if you're Canadian, or even if you're not Canadian.  If you're a Lithuanian, then tsk. You should know better.  Guest Carl Guest, you might better talk about what's pending, or, informally, what motion is on the floor.  Granted, if you're Canadian, you'll be concerned that it's cleaner if we have it on the table than on the floor.  But still.  Leave it. Brace up.

 

5.  You have to decide whether you're dealing with one solid (there's a better word, drattit, what is it?  O I'm having another over-40 moment, like the other over-40 moments of the past 20 years. "coherent"?  Man, I tell ya, it's tough gettin' old, at least older than Carl Guest) document, consisting of a number of parts (each of the proposed bylaws change), moved for adoption in one unifying motion -- see Mr Honemann's post 9 in the 17 August thread-- in which case Considering it By Paragraph (not saying "seriatim," or anything else in Latin, refreshes the mind, don't you think?) would likely be the best way.

 

Or, you have your 600 proposed bylaw changes, which are actually 600 independent bylaw amendents but presented in one physical package, purely for convenience, with no implication that there has been any improper conjugation among them.

In which case seriatim consideration is not applicable, like if a house has an infestation of lice, do you think the house is sick and give it CPR.

 

Or maybe you don't have to decide that.  Guest Carl Guest, what question are we talking about? Are you satisfied that the current procedure you're using, considering that it allows -- or does it, from your point of view? -- for satisfactory disposition of the four problematic items and maybe also then something about committees and a kitchen sink, will, thinking purely practically, get done what you want, never mind the procedural niceties or enormities, we can think about that jumble later, and for now, let's just get the job done, lie back, close your eyes and think of England.?

 

I'll tell you, I think that it's already so messed up, that right now trying to dot the i's and cross the t's may do more harm than good.  Maybe by saying this I'm committing heresy on this, the world's premier Internet parliamentary website (or is it "parliamentary Internet website"?  Great Steaming Cobnuts, another over-50 moment), but you might have Gordian-knotted yourselves, and maybe the best thing, all around, is to pick the cumbersome thing up and carry it around and don't cut it until you're done.  Try to avoid slicing your limbs in the process.

 

Kim Goldsworthy brilliantly advised, don't try to teach parliamentary procedure in the middle of a meeting.  I feel we're perilously close to that now.  This discussion is a jumble of practical questions and theoretical matters.  I think Guest_Carl Guest, that maybe bifurcate your concerns, and when you want to know what can, and should, we do now, given the mess (see Martin, J., above), leave proper procedure alone, for now, except for what's required to maintain integrity (see the last four words on p. 299), and learn better for next time.

 

After your meeting, when the dust settles, we can look at proper procedure.  Speaking of which:

 

I assume you own, and have read, at least the first time, your RONR-In Brief,  ... yes?

____

N.B.  Kidding about "older than Carl Guest."  No offense.  Or as we Canadians (or aspiring Canadians like me) put it, pace, Mr Guest.

[Gary c Tesser]

Like for example.  If you think that, maybe, you all would be better off rejecting the idea that all these proposed amendments make up a single subject, never mind that they were all, probably improperly (but never mind, thinking about what's proper at this point is pretty much surrealistic), presented in one sheaf:

 

 Maybe you could move to Reconsider (the obliviously-assumed) motion to consider all the proposed amendments By Paragraph (let's eschew, or maybe disdain, I forget which, the hoity-toity term "seriatim," maybe?).  I'm maybe 60% confident that moving to Reconsider is in order here.  If the Reconsideration is adopted, and the following vote on Considering by Paragraph (O how much nicer that sounds!) is defeated, then ...

 

O Great Steaming Cobnuts, you'd go back to considering the whole 22 pages, or whatever, as a unified document.

 

So maybe don't do that.

 

I'm thinking now that maybe (sorry if I'm boring you, but ongoing, that's the apropos word) where you go is a Point of Order, that the rules have been violated by considering a few (dozen? hundred?) individual, distinct, separate motions as a unity (per Mr Honemann, "-I suppose ...-," around post 3 or 4 of your Sunday thread, but I can't look it up now), when that was nowhere nohow established, so they're not.

 

I think Mr Martin, and maybe Mr Lages, disagree with me, that it's too late, you're stuck in Seriatim.  I repeat that I'm not sure that's very bad for your organization at this point, but maybe I'm missing nuances, like I usually do when occasionally trying to communicate coherently with human beings.

[Dan Honemann]

We have been told more than once that this is not a general revision of the bylaws that is under consideration, but it sure looks like one.

 

Even if this is not a revision, after all parts have been considered seriatim and the entire document is open to amendment, it should then be in order to move that the document be amended by striking out the new article relating to standing rules, since (we are told) there is nothing now in the bylaws on this subject.

 

Since seriatim consideration is now underway, it is too late to demand a division of the question.

 

A determination to consider seriatim cannot be reconsidered.

[Gary c Tesser]

... A determination to consider seriatim cannot be reconsidered.

 

Show me why, please?

[Dan Honemann]

Show me why, please?

 

Page 277, line 13?

[Guest Carl Guest]

The sole objective of my forum is to try and find a way to remove three seprate articles from the final 2/3 vote for the "entire document". Not doing so will likely result in defeat of the entire document. As you can probably tell, sending the whole document back to squre one, in this association, has the potential of it being another 10 years before we try this again. We achieve nothing.

 

One of those three  articles is the Standing Rules....which has not been addressed before in our bylaws. I now have a path for that article's removal from Mr. Honemann. That leaves two more problematic articles. They absolutley cannot be resolved, at this meeting, within scope rules. These remaining two articles, unlike Standing Rules, are currently in our bylaws. I remember and earlier quote that said something to the effect.....that no matter how one interprets the rules of scope, leaving an article up for amendment in its oringinal form, cannot violate scope rules.

 

Therefore, if you agree with the above, why can't we use the same process that we use for Standing Rules removal, for removing these other two article as they would simple leave the bylaws with the same articles we have now?

[Dan Honemann]

The sole objective of my forum is to try and find a way to remove three seprate articles from the final 2/3 vote for the "entire document". Not doing so will likely result in defeat of the entire document. As you can probably tell, sending the whole document back to squre one, in this association, has the potential of it being another 10 years before we try this again. We achieve nothing.

 

One of those three  articles is the Standing Rules....which has not been addressed before in our bylaws. I now have a path for that article's removal from Mr. Honemann. That leaves two more problematic articles. They absolutley cannot be resolved, at this meeting, within scope rules. These remaining two articles, unlike Standing Rules, are currently in our bylaws. I remember and earlier quote that said something to the effect.....that no matter how one interprets the rules of scope, leaving an article up for amendment in its oringinal form, cannot violate scope rules.

 

Therefore, if you agree with the above, why can't we use the same process that we use for Standing Rules removal, for removing these other two article as they would simple leave the bylaws with the same articles we have now?

 

You probably can (although it may have to be done in a different manner).

 

Please answer this question for us. How and by whom was the determination made that what is being considered is not a general revision of the bylaws (as described in RONR, 11th ed., on p. 593)?

[Guest Carl Guest]

Great question, I'm happy to answer. As our several years of re writing (amending) our bylaws, our Chair began to consult RR for rules of procedure. It was then recommended that we are actually revising, not amending our by laws because of the extent of the proposed amendments. After much discussion it was decided (parliamentarian included) that because the association was "amending" for all this time, going the revision route would not be proper. That is to say, we literally would be best served if we started over if revise rather than amend. For better or worse that's how it happend.

 

I have just spoken with the chair and he that he would rather pull out the three articles and proceed with all else. He also thinks that the document, duly noticed and the special bylaws meeting duly noticed, that the document itself is the "motion" to move. I am not qulified to have an opinion on that. Does seriatum need to be moved?

 

In any case, I am looking forward to hearing what you recommend for removing these articles. Thank you

[Dan Honemann]

Great question, I'm happy to answer. As our several years of re writing (amending) our bylaws, our Chair began to consult RR for rules of procedure. It was then recommended that we are actually revising, not amending our by laws because of the extent of the proposed amendments. After much discussion it was decided (parliamentarian included) that because the association was "amending" for all this time, going the revision route would not be proper. That is to say, we literally would be best served if we started over if revise rather than amend. For better or worse that's how it happend.

 

I have just spoken with the chair and he that he would rather pull out the three articles and proceed with all else. He also thinks that the document, duly noticed and the special bylaws meeting duly noticed, that the document itself is the "motion" to move. I am not qulified to have an opinion on that. Does seriatum need to be moved?

 

In any case, I am looking forward to hearing what you recommend for removing these articles. Thank you

 

I'm afraid that the situation remains unclear to me.

 

Presumably a main motion has been made to adopt this document that you have been (and are now) considering seriatim. Do you know exactly what this main motion is? If this document is eventually adopted, will it constitute your new bylaws in their entirety, or does it just consist of a group of separate amendments to your current bylaws? Or something else?

 

And when you refer to "several years" of amending your bylaws, I trust that you do not mean that the main motion now under consideration has been pending for several years, and so I don't understand what this has to do with the current situation.

 

I gather that your next meeting will be held sometime this weekend. Fortunately, your association apparently will have a parliamentarian on the spot. Your parliamentarian will have all of the essential facts that we, here on this forum, do not.

[Guest Carl Guest]

I do not know what the main motion was. It could have been made 8 years ago when this started or not. I will need to delve into old minutes. One thing for certain, it was not made at the bylaws meeting two weeks ago. The chair mentioned to me yesterday that the document itself is the motion.

If adopted it will constitute our new bylaws in their entirety.

The parliamentarian will not be and has not been at the bylaws meeting. Her suggestions/recommendations, which did not include making a main motion, was in a short single page letter that was sent out with the 25 day notice.

The meeting is scheduled for today at 10AM EDT. Thank you for trying. Without the doc and all facts it's challenging to say the least.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Show me why, please?

 

Page 277, line 13?

 

Yeeks.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Yeeks.

 

And I have the feeling I got myself nailed on this not too long ago.

Brother that's going to be one hell of a Registered Parliamentarian test.

[Guest Nancy N.]

... One thing for certain, it was not made at the bylaws meeting two weeks ago. The chair mentioned to me yesterday that the document itself is the motion...

If adopted it will constitute our new bylaws in their entirety.....

 

..The meeting is scheduled for today at 10AM EDT.

 

You remember what I said about folderol?  Despite appearances, I still don't think you're locked into the one-document position; they are still 150 separate proposed amendments.  Unless you're in EDT, or earlier..  For pity's sake, there hasn't even been a motion to adopt something yet!  8 years ago doesn't count!

 

I'd like to know how this turns out.  Though Dan is probably tired of typing, and needs to go back to dandling, and even my shoulders hurt.

[Josh Martin]

You remember what I said about folderol?  Despite appearances, I still don't think you're locked into the one-document position; they are still 150 separate proposed amendments.  Unless you're in EDT, or earlier..  For pity's sake, there hasn't even been a motion to adopt something yet!  8 years ago doesn't count!

 

I'd like to know how this turns out.  Though Dan is probably tired of typing, and needs to go back to dandling, and even my shoulders hurt.

 

But even if there was not a formal motion to adopt something, would it matter at this point, due to the timeliness rule for a Point of Order? The chair appears to have somehow assumed (without a motion) that the amendments were before the assembly and then proceeded with seriatim consideration. It appears that members actually did raise a Point of Order regarding at least one of these issues at the time, but such points were ruled not well taken and the members unfortunately did not pursue an Appeal. So although some things may have been done improperly, I don't know that they can be fixed now.

[Dan Honemann]

But even if there was not a formal motion to adopt something, would it matter at this point, due to the timeliness rule for a Point of Order? The chair appears to have somehow assumed (without a motion) that the amendments were before the assembly and then proceeded with seriatim consideration. It appears that members actually did raise a Point of Order regarding at least one of these issues at the time, but such points were ruled not well taken and the members unfortunately did not pursue an Appeal. So although some things may have been done improperly, I don't know that they can be fixed now.

 

Well, it matters because the assembly obviously  needs to know exactly what the main motion is that it has under consideration.

 

If it is true, as we are now advised, that the document under consideration, if adopted, will constitute the association's new bylaws in their entirety, by my standards what must have been moved is the adoption of a complete revision of the bylaws, whether they want to call it that or not.

 

And how about the notion that this motion may have been made 8 years ago?

[Josh Martin]

And how about the notion that this motion may have been made 8 years ago?

 

Oh yes, that seems quite unlikely. I suspect the eight years is in reference to the time the revision has spent in committees and such, and as you note in Post #17, has nothing to do with the current situation.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Y'know, there's a big difference between advising people how to do things right, and how to untangle a mess.  I think there's a lot more leeway when we have no firm idea, or if we even have a vague idea, of what the facts are, and our intrepid indefatigable reporter, Guest Carl Guest, who by now apparently clearly likes playing with spam-filter puzzles or he would have up and registered on the website by now, though I will say that I would find it easier if he picked just one "Guest," can't even pin them down, than when we can yawn and punch in a paint-by-numbers answer.  Incidentally I'm suspecting that this "wrath" business might just be a bluff, because I was gettin' my own placid serene equable self somewhat worked up by now, though it looks like the exasperatingness (term of art) is due to the situation, not Guest Carl Guest Himself, though his convoluted sentence structure doesn't help any.

 

So, given the conflicts, it seems to me that figuring out what they actually did is less a question of parliamentary acumen so much as Pin The Tail On The Donkey.  -- unless anything in the mess absolutely pins it down one way or another, which I don't see.  I think if it's better for this group to consider their stack of paper as a unified document if they want to,  and if they want to consider it as a pile (or "bunch," as some would sloppily call it) of independent bylaw amendment proposals, also fine.  I'd lean towards voting that they are unattached, since that would make it easier for them to deal with their contentious proposals; though I concur with Mr. Honemann that there's considerable weight to the view that it walks like a revision and quacks like a revision.  But it's more like a platypus.