Amending By-Laws

[Guest Rob DePascale]

Our organization recently adopted Robert's Rules to replace Cushing's Manual of Parliamentary Practice.  The existing language within our by-laws to vote on amendments calls for a majority vote, which is less than the 2/3 requirement called for under Robert's Rules.  I have included the relevant language below.

"Any amendment to these by-laws may be proposed at any regular meeting to be adopted by a majority vote of regular members at the following regular meeting, provided the members receive written notice of such amendments at least five (5) days in advance."

Does an organization have the ability to impose requirements which are less stringent than those required under Robert's Rules (i.e. waive the notice requirement or require less than a 2/3 vote)?  The rules speak to imposing voting requirements which require a vote larger than two-thirds, but are silent on imposing rules which require less.  Will a majority vote rule for a pending amendment, or will Article VIII, Section 48 trump our by-law as written, as it runs afoul of the "motions requiring a two-thirds vote" requirement.     

Any guidance is greatly appreciated.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Your organization can have rules which supersede those in RONR.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Also, you may want to get a copy of the current 11th edition. "Article VIII, Section 48" comes from the outdated 4th edition of Robert's Rules that was published in 1915.

[Guest]

Thanks for the feedback.  I am awaiting an updated copy of Robert's Rules, but in the interim have obviously fallen for the danger of relying on outdated material available via the web.  My apologies for the oversight.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

2 hours ago, Guest Rob DePascale said:

Our organization recently adopted Robert's Rules to replace Cushing's Manual of Parliamentary Practice.  

***

The existing language within our bylaws to vote on amendments calls for a majority vote,

(which is less than the 2/3 requirement called for under Robert's Rules.)

I have included the relevant [bylaws] language below.

>> "Any amendment to these by-laws may be proposed at any regular meeting to be adopted by a majority vote of regular members at the following regular meeting,

>> provided the members receive written notice of such amendments at least five (5) days in advance."

Q1.) Does an organization have the ability to impose requirements which are less stringent than those required under Robert's Rules (i.e. waive the notice requirement or require less than a 2/3 vote)? 

The rules speak to imposing voting requirements which require a vote larger than two-thirds, but are silent on imposing rules which require less.  

Q2.) Will a majority vote rule for a pending amendment, or will Article VIII, Section 48 trump our by-law as written, as it runs afoul of the "motions requiring a two-thirds vote" requirement.     

Remember:

IF

(a.) a rule in one's bylaws; AND

(b.) a rule in your parliamentary authority (now "Robert's Rules of Order"); conflict

THEN:

   • The superior rule (bylaws-level) prevails.

   • The inferior rule (parliamentary-authority-level) yields.

***

You think you have conflicting rules regarding the method of amendment of your bylaws.

But you do not, really, since any conflict between LEVELS of rules is instantly resolved by going with the superior level.

***

The rules in your parliamentary authority only hold if they are "not inconsistent" with existing superior rules.

Since those two sets of rules are inconsistent, then the rule in the parliamentary authority does not hold.

 

[Guest]

Thank you, that is a thoughtful and well stated answer.  I greatly appreciate your insight.