hampton32 Posted September 25, 2015 at 12:30 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 at 12:30 AM The bylaws of our organization state that the bylaws may be amended by a 2/3 vote of the members in good standing, provided that the proposed amendment shall have been read at the previous regular meeting of membership. In June, the Bylaws Committee presented an amendment that would alter the nominating process for the selection of officers, including President, by changing the makeup of who was eligible for the Nominating Committee. During the discussion, one member significantly amended the proposed amendment, by adding a long paragraph about the selection of alternates for the Nominating Committee. I took the position that the new language should go back to the Bylaws Committee to present at the next meeting and allow a vote because that would be "best practices", and would following Robert's Rules. The language that was cobbled together during the June meeting was not good and I thought it deserved more careful consideration so that it could be improved. Several rabble rousers became irate, stating that the full amendment (including the part that was added in the June meeting) had to be voted on at the next meeting, without any involvement by the Bylaws Committee because of our bylaws regarding amendments. I say that this is a different situation because the proposed amendment was significantly amended. Who is correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted September 25, 2015 at 01:05 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 at 01:05 AM How was the notice given for the amendment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gödel Fan Posted September 25, 2015 at 03:43 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 at 03:43 AM In June, was the committee giving notice for a motion at the next meeting, or was it trying to move the amendment, having previously given notice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hampton32 Posted September 25, 2015 at 03:50 AM Author Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 at 03:50 AM In June, the proposed amendment was approved by the Board, and then presented by the Bylaws Committee chair in the general meeting. That was when a member amended the proposed amendment by adding a manner in which to select 3 alternates for the Nominating Committee. After that discussion, the President announced that the amended amendment would be read again at the September meeting, and then voted on. A new President took over this month and wanted to refer it back to a Bylaws Committee to make sure it was carefully considered and properly worded. The lawyers in the group, including me, felt that the President was correct, but it caused an uproar among a certain faction. Btw, thank you so much for reading my post and for any guidance. It is much appreciated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gödel Fan Posted September 25, 2015 at 04:09 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 at 04:09 AM Your original post mentioned nothing about the Board having a role in bylaw amendments. I take your second post to indicate that June was the first time this proposal was presented to the membership at a general meeting. The proposal, then, wasn't being moved, just given as notice. Therefore, it wasn't in order for the body to amend it. Yet, it was done, and it's too late to raise a point of order. I would think, then, that the chair's statement at least counts as notice, so it doesn't seem impossible to vote on it at the September meeting. The issue, I take it, is that it was hastily amended on the floor, which is a bad idea. The bylaws committee could meet and discuss proper wording for the proposal. Then, in September, with the proposal as (wrongly) amended pending, they could move one or a series of amendments to make it look right, assuming those amendments fall within the scope of notice. Alternatively, with the proposal as amended pending, a motion could be made to refer it back to the committee. Or the committee can simply decide not to make the motion. After all, giving notice doesn't obligate you to make the motion you gave notice for. They could, instead, provide notice for a different proposal - a version that does what this gentleman wanted but is perfected. (Although nothing obligates the committee to bring forward a proposal doing what this gentleman wishes, if the committee is not so inclined.) Unless your bylaws require that the committee bring forward proposals, and ban others from doing so, the gentleman can give notice of his own proposal, then introduce it himself, if the committee declines to put forth a motion doing what he wants. The two takeaways are: the body can't amend a notice (although if they did, well, it's too late now), and the President saying "we'll vote on it in September" doesn't make it so - all that exists is notice of a motion, and if the motion isn't made, it won't be voted on. (Of course, continuing down this path, if the committee declines to present any motion in September, the gentleman who sought the amendments could presumably move the entire proposal - at which time you could move to refer it to the bylaws committee. One could also take the position that the amendment was meaningless, since the body can't amend a notice (it doesn't own it), so the notice that was given was for the original proposal, and any attempt to amend it again at the September meeting, if outside the scope of notice, is out of order. That's not the position I would take, but I can see one getting there. Regardless, unless you have bylaws or special rules relevant to it, the President can't refer things on his own. The body can adopt a motion to refer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hampton32 Posted September 25, 2015 at 04:36 AM Author Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 at 04:36 AM Sorry for being unclear. The amendment was read in May. In June, it was read again and amended. We just had the September meeting, which became chaotic and very unpleasant when the new President stated that the amended amendment would be referred to the Bylaws Committee. She said if it were not changed at all, it would be voted on in October. If the Bylaws Committee made changes, then the new amendment would be read in October, and voted on in December (since there is no November meeting). When you say: "The two takeaways are: the body can't amend a notice (although if they did, well, it's too late now)" --- Should a general member have made a motion to add that language? Sorry, but I am unclear on that point. The faction causing trouble made a motion to vote on the amended amendment. They said it had been read before in June, and now they were owed a vote because the bylaws say so. There were people getting out of their chairs and yelling -- it was ugly. So the President allowed the vote to go forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gödel Fan Posted September 25, 2015 at 06:04 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 at 06:04 AM Well, the response to people getting out of their chairs and yelling is either discipline or a sergeant at arms, but that's a side point. I misunderstood the situation. So in May the notice was given, and in June the proposal was actually moved. In that case, it was probably out of order to amend it in the manner described for a different reason - the amendment was outside the scope of notice. You asked about "the body can't amend a notice." I thought that June was the first reading (which is giving previous notice), which is what that comment referred to. When the proposal is actually moved, some amendments are in order, but not amendments that go beyond what was noticed. (If I give notice that I intend to propose a bylaw amendment to raise dues from $10 to $30, it would be in order to move to amend by making it $20, but not to make it $40.) But it seems your President knew that, or had some idea of it anyway, and reacted to the amendment by saying "okay, that's new notice." So the "troublemakers" moved a proposal that required notice, and for which notice had been given. It's not clear to me why they're troublemakers. The President can't refuse to allow a motion that is in order to come to the floor simply because they think it's not worded well. The President cannot refer a motion. They weren't quite "owed a vote," though. As I said, you, or someone, could have moved to refer the motion back to the committee. The President can't simply refuse to state the question and refer it by their own authority. If a chair tried to do that to a noticed motion I was making, I'd be a "troublemaker" too. (I wouldn't start yelling, but I'd sure raise a point of order and appeal if necessary.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hampton32 Posted September 25, 2015 at 06:42 AM Author Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 at 06:42 AM Thank you so much, Godel Fan.I hope you don't mind a follow up question. If I had made a motion to refer the motion back to the Bylaws Committee, then I assume my motion would have to pass by majority vote? The troublemakers would have objected, but I believe I would have had a majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 25, 2015 at 08:03 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 at 08:03 AM ... If I had made a motion to refer the motion back to the Bylaws Committee, then I assume my motion would have to pass by majority vote? ... Yes, the motion to refer-to-committee is adopted with a majority vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted September 29, 2015 at 06:40 PM Report Share Posted September 29, 2015 at 06:40 PM In June, the proposed amendment was approved by the Board, and then presented by the Bylaws Committee chair in the general meeting. That was when a member amended the proposed amendment by adding a manner in which to select 3 alternates for the Nominating Committee. After that discussion, the President announced that the amended amendment would be read again at the September meeting, and then voted on. A new President took over this month and wanted to refer it back to a Bylaws Committee to make sure it was carefully considered and properly worded. The lawyers in the group, including me, felt that the President was correct, but it caused an uproar among a certain faction. Btw, thank you so much for reading my post and for any guidance. It is much appreciated!The uproar among factions is unproductive. If you moved that the matter be recommitted to the bylaws committee, the appropriate next step (after the uproar, which passed for debate) would be to vote on it. Once the matter is decided the roarers-up can continue their exercise elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.