Voting on changes to same rule

[Guest Martwillhenry]

We have a rule in our club which allows for 2 types of members Full and Associate.

We have had 2 proposals from 2 different members to change the rule, one wishes to remove Associate Membership and the other wishes to add "conditions" (min length of membership before being eligible for Associate Membership) to same rule.

At our AGM which proposal is voted on first?

Martwillhenry

[Richard Brown]

Good question. That seems to be covered in RONR, 11th edition, on on pages 593 and 594, starting with the last word on page 593:  "If notice of several amendments is given which conflict so that all cannot be given effect, the chair should arrange them in a logical order. . . ."

 

Since the amendment which adds conditions to the Associate Membership class will be rendered moot if Associate Memberships are abolished completely, I would suggest taking up the amendment to abolish associate members first.  It that amendment is adopted, the other one is rendered moot because bylaw amendments take effect immediately upon adoption.  See lines 21 - 25 on page 594.  If it fails, the assembly can then consider the amendment that adds conditions to becoming an associate member.

 

The actual order of taking up the amendments can also be ordered by the assembly by majority vote without debate.  (page 594, lines 5 - 7).

[Josh Martin]

Good question. That seems to be covered in RONR, 11th edition, on on pages 593 and 594, starting with the last word on page 593:  "If notice of several amendments is given which conflict so that all cannot be given effect, the chair should arrange them in a logical order. . . ."

 

Since the amendment which adds conditions to the Associate Membership class will be rendered moot if Associate Memberships are abolished completely, I would suggest taking up the amendment to abolish associate members first.  It that amendment is adopted, the other one is rendered moot because bylaw amendments take effect immediately upon adoption.  See lines 21 - 25 on page 594.  If it fails, the assembly can then consider the amendment that adds conditions to becoming an associate member.

 

I disagree. While it is correct that the amendment which adds conditions will be dropped if associate memberships are abolished (because the amendment proposes to modify language which no longer exists), the text clearly states that "this situation should generally not arise if the amendments are taken up in proper order as indicated above." It seems to me that the motion adding conditions should be considered first, followed by the motion to abolish the associate memberships.