proposed bylaws changes

[s49021]

Previous notice had been given about proposed bylaws amendments and that a vote would be taken. When the chair began the proposals, a board member called for discussion about a related topic before any motion could be made about the changes (many felt the changes were unnecessary in the first place). After comments from the board, the chair stated that the bylaws changes would be tabled until the next meeting. Since no motion was ever made, how is this worded in the minutes?

Thanks for this forum---it has truly helped me much in the last few years!

[Chris Harrison]

If no motion was made about amending the bylaws there would not be any mention about it (since the minutes reflect what is done at a meeting). Also, the President was way off base regarding "tabling" the amendments until the next meeting.

1) The correct term is postponing the amendments not tabling them. Laying a motion on the Table means there is a more pressing issue that needs to be dealt with and the intent is to get back to it later (and there would be no set time for it to be Taken From The Table.

2) No rule in RONR gives the President the authority to announce that anything will be "tabled" or postponed until the next meeting.

[hmtcastle]

When the chair began the proposals, a board member called for discussion about a related topic before any motion could be made about the changes (many felt the changes were unnecessary in the first place). After comments from the board, the chair stated that the bylaws changes would be tabled until the next meeting.

Where to begin?

Firstly, the chair doesn't "begin the proposals". Rather, a member makes a motion.

Secondly, assuming this is a meeting of the general membership (since that's who's usually authorized to amend the bylaws), any member who happens to also be a board member has no special status. And "the board" has nothing to say at all.

Finally, a good rule of thumb is: one thing at a time.

[Rob Elsman]

I agree with Chris H. Moreover, if RONR (10th ed.) is the society's parliamentary authority, make sure the chairman is familiar with it and has a copy of it at hand every time he presides at a meeting. The rest of you should be familiar with RONR In Brief.

[Mr. J!]

The above replies are all correct. However, you still have the problem of what to put in the minutes.

Even though what was done was not by the book and sounds confusing and unclear, simply record in the minutes exactly what actually happened, as best you can, not what should have happened.

[Rob Elsman]

The above replies are all correct. However, you still have the problem of what to put in the minutes.

Even though what was done was not by the book and sounds confusing and unclear, simply record in the minutes exactly what actually happened, as best you can, not what should have happened.

Well, in this case, nothing happened. That's the point. The question never came before the assembly, so nothing was done. The procedure for amending the bylaws has to begin all over again from the beginning, including the valid giving of any required previous notice, since a main motion was not made at the meeting for which notice of the making of the motion was given.

[Chris Harrison]

The procedure for amending the bylaws has to begin all over again from the beginning, including the valid giving of any required previous notice, since a main motion was not made at the meeting for which notice of the making of the motion was given.

Even though the President was clearly wrong in the unilaterally postponing the amendments until the next meeting, wouldn't the fact that no timely Point of Order was raised mean that the assembly in effect agreed to the postponement so they would be taken up in General Orders at the next meeting?

[s49021]

Thank you for all your replies.

I probably misstated when I said the "chair proposed." I believe he actually was going thorough the agenda and simply said something like, "Now to the bylaws amendments." and listed the first one. He certainly did say that we would "table the bylaws changes," which I knew was incorrect terminology.

I agree with each answer, and that is the reason I posed the question. I wanted to be sure that any wording in the minutes is proper. Since I will be the one sending out notices on bylaws changes AGAIN, if nothing at all is written in the minutes, won't members think it odd that the minutes reflect nothing on the issue? Would it be proper to first say something about the discussion that occurred, and then say that the bylaws will be amended at the next meeting?

Thanks.

[Chris Harrison]

Since I will be the one sending out notices on bylaws changes AGAIN, if nothing at all is written in the minutes, won't members think it odd that the minutes reflect nothing on the issue? Would it be proper to first say something about the discussion that occurred, and then say that the bylaws will be amended at the next meeting?

Discussion should not be included in the minutes. If you note that the bylaws were "tabled" (you need to reflect what actually was done) until the next meeting the members will know what to expect. If they want details they can ask someone who was at the meeting.

[Rob Elsman]

Even though the President was clearly wrong in the unilaterally postponing the amendments until the next meeting, wouldn't the fact that no timely Point of Order was raised mean that the assembly in effect agreed to the postponement so they would be taken up in General Orders at the next meeting?

What amendments? Did someone move to amend something? How does one postpone nothing?

[Chris Harrison]

What amendments? Did someone move to amend something? How does one postpone nothing?

I suppose so. From texex's 9:49 pm post I have a bit of confusion whether the Chair assumed the motion (since it was on the agenda and notice had been given) so the amendments were before the assembly (sort of). But since everything was done very sloppy it is safer in any case to give proper notice again to make sure things are bulletproof.

[Rob Elsman]

I suppose so. From texex's 9:49 pm post I have a bit of confusion whether the Chair assumed the motion (since it was on the agenda and notice had been given) so the amendments were before the assembly (sort of). But since everything was done very sloppy it is safer in any case to give proper notice again to make sure things are bulletproof.

There is nothing in RONR to suggest that the chairman can assume a main motion because previous notice of it has been given, and it has been entered on the established order of business or agenda. See RONR, Off. Interp. 2007-1. In fact, the opposite is true; if the giver of notice has changed his mind and no other member wants to make the motion, then the matter is dropped, and the effect of the notice expires with the adjournment of the final meeting of the session.

[J. J.]

There is nothing in RONR to suggest that the chairman can assume a main motion because previous notice of it has been given, and it has been entered on the established order of business or agenda. See RONR, Off. Interp. 2007-1. In fact, the opposite is true; if the giver of notice has changed his mind and no other member wants to make the motion, then the matter is dropped, and the effect of the notice expires with the adjournment of the final meeting of the session.

If the chair announced that an unstated motion has been tabled, and no one objected, the chair clearly assumed the motion and assumed the motion to lay that motion on the table.

[Rob Elsman]

If the chair announced that an unstated motion has been tabled, and no one objected, the chair clearly assumed the motion and assumed the motion to lay that motion on the table.

Oh, we've been through this a million times. The chairman has no more power to make something out of nothing than an alchemist has the power to change lead into gold.

[J. J.]

Oh, we've been through this a million times. The chairman has no more power to make something out of nothing than an alchemist has the power to change lead into gold.

It is not a question of the chair's "power." It is a question of what the assembly permitted.

The assembly, by not objecting, i.e. raising a point of order at the time, consented to the chair assuming the motion to amend the bylaws and the laying of the motion on the table. No one is claiming any grand powers for the chair, only that the assembly did something it could otherwise do.

[Rob Elsman]

It is not a question of the chair's "power." It is a question of what the assembly permitted.

The assembly, by not objecting, i.e. raising a point of order at the time, consented to the chair assuming the motion to amend the bylaws and the laying of the motion on the table. No one is claiming any grand powers for the chair, only that the assembly did something it could otherwise do.

For three years now, we've had the benefit of Official Interpretation 2007-1. Don't you think it's about time we laid this silliness finally to rest?

[J. J.]

For three years now, we've had the benefit of Official Interpretation 2007-1. Don't you think it's about time we laid this silliness finally to rest?

Official Interpretation 2007-1 says, "Assuming a motion, rather than waiting or calling for the motion to be made, is appropriate as a means of saving the time of the assembly when it is obvious that the motion is necessary or appropriate in light of the pending business."

The chair thought it was "obvious" and the assembly obviously agreed, because no member raised a point of order or objected.

Maybe you should re-read it a bit more closely, along with p. 244.

[Dan Honemann]

Official Interpretation 2007-1 says, "Assuming a motion, rather than waiting or calling for the motion to be made, is appropriate as a means of saving the time of the assembly when it is obvious that the motion is necessary or appropriate in light of the pending business."

The chair thought it was "obvious" and the assembly obviously agreed, because no member raised a point of order or objected.

Maybe you should re-read it a bit more closely, along with p. 244.

However, the chair "assumes" a motion by stating (or, sometimes, by putting) the question on it (see RONR Off. Interp. 2007-1), and in this instance the chair apparently did neither.

Exactly what happened remains a mystery, unless you know what texex means by "I believe he actually was going thorough the agenda and simply said something like, "Now to the bylaws amendments." and listed the first one."

[J. J.]

However, the chair "assumes" a motion by stating (or, sometimes, by putting) the question on it (see RONR Off. Interp. 2007-1), and in this instance the chair apparently did neither.

Exactly what happened remains a mystery, unless you know what texex means by "I believe he actually was going thorough the agenda and simply said something like, "Now to the bylaws amendments." and listed the first one."

The chair did say, "that we would 'table the bylaws changes,' which I knew was incorrect terminology," according to texex. That seems to be clear that the changes were pending. (I would suggest the minutes read "The bylaw amendments were laid on the table.")

I'm trying to see a real p. 244 violation here, and I'm not seeing it. Textbook procedure, absolutely not. Something that creates a breach of a continuing nature? Absent an objection of some type, I'd say no.

[Chris Harrison]

I'm trying to see a real p. 244 violation here, and I'm not seeing it. Textbook procedure, absolutely not. Something that creates a breach of a continuing nature? Absent an objection of some type, I'd say no.

I'm not sure there would be a p. 244 violation here. Where I was coming from when I started this fun was whether the motion was actually before the assembly in some shape or form so when postponed they would come up under General Orders the next meeting or if there was nothing actually before the assembly then notice would need to be made again.

[J. J.]

I'm not sure there would be a p. 244 violation here. Where I was coming from when I started this fun was whether the motion was actually before the assembly in some shape or form so when postponed they would come up under General Orders the next meeting or if there was nothing actually before the assembly then notice would need to be made again.

I think that there is a bit of a different question (which might require a new thread).

Assume that the assembly did it right and that the chair does not assume a motion. Notice is given for a bylaw amendment at the last meeting; the society meets monthly. Prior to the main motion being introduced, with nothing pending, a member moves, "That consideration of the bylaw amendment be postponed until the next meeting." It's an IMM. The motion properly stated and adopted.

Would notice have to be given again? It is a gray area (and could depend on the definition of "brought up"). I'd probably say further notice was not needed, but that is a guess.

[Dan Honemann]

The chair did say, "that we would 'table the bylaws changes,' which I knew was incorrect terminology," according to texex. That seems to be clear that the changes were pending. (I would suggest the minutes read "The bylaw amendments were laid on the table.")

Well, there is obviously no indication that the changes were pending by virtue of the chair having assumed any motion at all, and this is the only point that I am making.

It is misleading to speak in terms of the chair's having "assumed a motion" based upon the facts as presented.

[s49021]

Wow, what a can of worms I opened! It is difficult to figure this all out without actually being at the meeting and knowing what is going on behind the scenes.

First, the chair had appointed an ad hoc committee to study the bylaws the day that he assumed office. This organization has operated for over 30 years with the same bylaws. Many feel there is no need to change them. Those on the ad hoc committee are the one who are in favor of the changes-- except the person who asked the chair a question before a motion of any kind was made to approve the changes. The other persons on the ad hoc committee were not present, so I doubt that the changes would have passed. Does these additional facts change your answers?

By the way, I did not know that a chair could "assume" a motion. I thought it had to be stated very clearly. I do have a copy of RONR, but I confess the print is so small, I have to use a magnifying glass to read it.

Thank you.

[J. J.]

Wow, what a can of worms I opened! It is difficult to figure this all out without actually being at the meeting and knowing what is going on behind the scenes.

First, the chair had appointed an ad hoc committee to study the bylaws the day that he assumed office. This organization has operated for over 30 years with the same bylaws. Many feel there is no need to change them. Those on the ad hoc committee are the one who are in favor of the changes-- except the person who asked the chair a question before a motion of any kind was made to approve the changes. The other persons on the ad hoc committee were not present, so I doubt that the changes would have passed. Does these additional facts change your answers?

No, but it might have logical to postpone considering the motion.

By the way, I did not know that a chair could "assume" a motion. I thought it had to be stated very clearly. I do have a copy of RONR, but I confess the print is so small, I have to use a magnifying glass to read it.

Thank you.

It sounds to me, at least, that there was an unstated motion before the assembly that was [improperly] laid on the table. I'd treat is as such and use the formula cited to record it in the minutes.

I won't disagree with anyone that says this was far from textbook.

[Dan Honemann]

By the way, I did not know that a chair could "assume" a motion. I thought it had to be stated very clearly.

All this stuff about the chair "assuming a motion" has nothing to do with your situation. Forget about it.