Can we do a bylaws revision but limit consideration to changes for which notice has been given?

[Dan Honemann]

Well, seeing as how it's spring, I'll agree with you that the allowable scope of amendment is in no way dependent upon the number of people on the committee tasked with drafting the revision. 

[Guest]

Setting aside this fascinating question, which I, for one, would prefer be found in the Advanced Discussion section (sub-forum?), and perhaps getting back to Guest Amy Gillespie's problem.  Assuming that the membership of Ms Gillespie's group might be capable of thinking of arguments like these, they are very vulnerable to plunging into discussions like the above, are likely to be as lengthy and inconclusive as is here (even allowing a peaceable and orderly assembly, and a savvy chair).  Notwithstanding the agreement of Mr Gerber, Mr Honemann, and Mr Merritt on one side.  The citations of both sides are the same; and Mr Gerber did say that RONR is not very clear  on this (and PL of course is eminently persuasive, but not apodictic).

As a possible work-around, could Ms Gillespie's allies indeed propose their numerous isolated changes, while also proposing that the amendments all be considered together ("en bloc"?  I am bookless right now) and of course allowing that the question could be divided (perhaps on the demand of a single member), so that the assembly can be assured that no one is trying to pull a fast one?

(Dan (Posted Thursday at 8:08 AM ), I am not at all sure that the fear of the meeting's running all night, or of coming nowhere near finishing, is fantastic. )

 

[Guest Gary c Tesser]

(Dammit, that was me.)

[Guest Gary c Tesser]

(O Great Steaming Cobnuts, we're already there.)

[Dan Honemann]

13 minutes ago, Guest said:

As a possible work-around, could Ms Gillespie's allies indeed propose their numerous isolated changes, while also proposing that the amendments all be considered together ("en bloc"?  I am bookless right now) and of course allowing that the question could be divided (perhaps on the demand of a single member), so that the assembly can be assured that no one is trying to pull a fast one?

I'm not willing to go back and look, but I sincerely doubt that anyone has said that numerous isolated changes to the bylaws cannot be offered in a single motion.

[J. J.]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I'm not willing to go back and look, but I sincerely doubt that anyone has said that numerous isolated changes to the bylaws cannot be offered in a single motion.

I'm not willing to go back and look, but I sincerely doubt that anyone has said that numerous isolated changes to the bylaws cannot be offered in a single motion.

If offered an one motion, could it be divided at the demand of any one member?

[Dan Honemann]

5 minutes ago, J. J. said:

If offered an one motion, could it be divided at the demand of any one member?

Yes, to the extent that they are independent proposals.

[J. J.]

Okay, another question.

 

A member give proper notice of an amendment to substitute a set of bylaws she has written for the current set of bylaws.  It is in writing, of course.  Would that be in order?

[Dan Honemann]

3 hours ago, J. J. said:

Okay, another question.

 

A member give proper notice of an amendment to substitute a set of bylaws she has written for the current set of bylaws.  It is in writing, of course.  Would that be in order?

I don't see why not.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, J. J. said:

Okay, another question.

 

A member give proper notice of an amendment to substitute a set of bylaws she has written for the current set of bylaws.  It is in writing, of course.  Would that be in order?

Not to be tedious, but just to nail it down, please:  This would be an instance, or the instance, in which only the changes that were given previous notice could be considered?

(This discussion has thrown me for a loop.  I have been looking at this material, materially in one form or another, since 1992, and the emphasis on revision coming from a committee completely escaped me.)

[J. J.]

On 3/22/2016 at 2:21 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I don't see why not.

Nor I.  The difference between this and a revision may be just scope of notice.

A substitution of a new set of bylaws would still require that amendment to the substitution be within scope of notice.  Amendments to a revision has no scope of notice issue.

[Dan Honemann]

On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 10:31 AM, J. J. said:

Okay, another question.

A member give proper notice of an amendment to substitute a set of bylaws she has written for the current set of bylaws.  It is in writing, of course.  Would that be in order?

 

On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 2:21 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I don't see why not.

 

4 hours ago, J. J. said:

Nor I.  The difference between this and a revision may be just scope of notice.

A substitution of a new set of bylaws would still require that amendment to the substitution be within scope of notice.  Amendments to a revision has no scope of notice issue.

Well, yeah, this is the distinction that Shmuel has been drawing since way back when.

[J. J.]

13 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

 

Well, yeah, this is the distinction that Shmuel has been drawing since way back when.

Well, I was attempting to clearly show the difference between an amendment by substitution and an amendment by revision.    I thought the explanation might at some clarity.