amending bylaws

[Guest wotd]

My church has the following articles in our bylaws about amending them. We have a differing of opinion about their interpretation. Can someone please help?

A7.01.           Bylaws may be adopted or amended at any legally called meeting of this congregation with a quorum present by a majority vote of those voting members present and voting.

 

A7.02.           Changes to the bylaws may be proposed by any voting member provided, however, that such additions or amendments be submitted in writing to the Congregation Council at least sixty (60) days before a regular or special Congregation Meeting called for that purpose and that the Congregation Council notify the members of the proposal with its recommendations at least thirty (30) days in advance of the Congregation Meeting.

 

Assuming the meeting meets the requirements in A7.01, can changes be proposed verbally at that meeting and voted on at that same meeting? Or, as stated in A7.02, can changes only be made in writing 60 days in advance of the meeting and the council has to publish the changes 30 days before the meeting. So the proposed changes have to "sit" for 30 days without any changes.

[Chris Harrison]

It ultimately is up to you all to interpret those bylaws but you may want to check out RONR  pp. 307-308 regarding Scope of Notice.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

All the bylaws should be followed.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

4 hours ago, Guest wotd said:

. . . can changes be proposed verbally at that meeting and voted on at that same meeting?

Amendments are allowed if the amendments are within "scope".

The existing language of one dimension (e.g., years, number, timing, etc.), and the proposed language to change that variable(s), will establish a "scope" (range) of allowable changes.

Often, this is a judgment call. -- Is the amendment within scope of the notice?

So, bottom line, the answer is "Yes, sometimes. No, other times."

[Bruce Lages]

I got the impression that Guest wotd wasn't asking about scope of notice issues with previously published bylaw amendment proposals, but whether the first quoted bylaw statement allows for a new amendment ( "changes") to be proposed and voted on at the same meeting - if the meeting satisfies the conditions set forth in that same quoted bylaw.

[Gary c Tesser]

1 hour ago, Bruce Lages said:

I got the impression ...

I agree:  ISTM that he (she?)  was asking whether the clauses contradict each other -- that is, does each clause provide complete instructions for amending the bylaws -- or whether they are to supplement each other -- that is, the first clause prescribes how to vote, and the second clause says what must happen before that.

[Guest wotd]

On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 10:06 AM, Gary c Tesser said:

I agree:  ISTM that he (she?)  was asking whether the clauses contradict each other -- that is, does each clause provide complete instructions for amending the bylaws -- or whether they are to supplement each other -- that is, the first clause prescribes how to vote, and the second clause says what must happen before that.

Yes that was the heart of my question. I apologize for not explaining it clearly.

[Dan Honemann]

These clauses don't contradict each other. Both should be given effect.

[Shmuel Gerber]

24 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

These clauses don't contradict each other. Both should be given effect.

And then they should both be given the heave-ho. They're terribly worded.

[Gary Novosielski]

23 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

And then they should both be given the heave-ho. They're terribly worded.

I especially liked the part about having a vote of those voting members who were voting.