Ms.

[Guest Lori Riley]

Our President has sent out a proposed bylaw change and given the required 30-day notice.  In the proposed change, there is a clause that states that to be eligible to serve on the Executive Board you must have been a member for at least a year.  I know that at our upcoming meeting when a vote is to be taken that one member is going to propose an amendment that will include additional wording along the lines of "unless no member who has been a member for at least a year is able and willing to serve."  Or some wording just to give an out in the unlikely event that this would happen.

My question is:  does that wording change require another 30 days notice and therefore voting would be pushed back to our next meeting?  Or can we vote on the amended motion at the meeting when the amendment is proposed and accepted?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

I think to answer your questions, it is necessary to know the exact wording of the proposed bylaw change and how it is changing the current bylaw.

[jstackpo]

Since the the proposed "unless no member" amendment is germane to the "at least a year" bylaw amendment, it does not need a 30 day notice.  And it will require only a majority for adoption.

The (presumably) amended motion to amend the bylaws will still require a 2/3 vote for adoption (presuming you are following RONR in this respect).

[Dan Honemann]

9 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Since the the proposed "unless no member" amendment is germane to the "at least a year" bylaw amendment, it does not need a 30 day notice.  And it will require only a majority for adoption.

The (presumably) amended motion to amend the bylaws will still require a 2/3 vote for adoption (presuming you are following RONR in this respect).

I don't think that "germane" is the right word to use here, since a proposed amendment that is germane to a proposed bylaw amendment may still go beyond the scope of the notice given.

[jstackpo]

Check.  The amendment to the original amend the bylaws motion was (as far as I can tell) both germane and within the scope of the previous notice.

I suppose if an amendment was not germane, it would be EXTREMELY unlikely that is would still be within scope, maybe even impossible.  Can anybody produce a counter-example?

[Guest]

I apologize for not being more specific.  There are actually two changes where this similar wording may be added.  In both of the below proposed changes, a member is going to suggest an amendment.  In the first they will want to add the words "unless the requisite number of members that are willing and able to serve do not meet this requirement."  Or something like that.  The second example below will also have the proposal to add wording such as "unless no member who meets the one year requirement is willing and able to serve in a position."  I'm sorry that I don't know the exact wording of the changes that are going to offered at the meeting, but I am hopeful that the intent is clear and you can let me know if this will still be considered within the scope.

a.    Current Version: Members of the Nominations Committee must have been a CWGA member for at least two (2) years from the date that the member first paid CWGA dues.

There must be representation on the Committee from each flight if possible; however, the two-year CWGA membership requirement takes precedence over this. If any flight does not have a player who has been a member of CWGA for the last two years, then there will not be a member from that flight on the Committee.

b.    Proposed Change: Members of the Nominations Committee must have been a CWGA member for at least two (2) years from the date that the member first paid CWGA dues and may serve no more than two consecutive years on the Nominations Committee. There must be representation on the Committee from each flight if possible; however, the two-year CWGA membership requirement takes precedence over this. If any flight does not have a player who has been a member of CWGA for the last two years, then there will not be a member from that flight on the Committee.

 

1.    Article VI/Section 5 (new) – Executive Board

a.    Proposed Addition: In order to serve on the Executive Board, a member must have belonged to the CWGA for a period of one (1) year from the date that the member first paid CWGA dues.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

If I understand the situation correctly there is no current length-of-membership requirement for holding office, and one is proposed as a bylaws amendment.  In that case, a further amendment from the floor that introduces an exception to that rule is within the scope of notice.  It falls nicely between the current situation and the proposed amendment.  It does not go beyond the proposed amendment. It tempers, rather than extends, the amendment for which notice was given. 

[Guest]

thanks to everyone for the responses!!