Guest John Posted May 31, 2010 at 07:26 PM Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 at 07:26 PM Our bylaws have several spelling and punctuation errors. Does RRoO allow one to make those changes without being voted on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted May 31, 2010 at 07:31 PM Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 at 07:31 PM No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted May 31, 2010 at 07:48 PM Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 at 07:48 PM No.But, see RONR (10th ed.), p. 580, ll. 26-31, for an example of a resolution that would authorize the secretary to make these kinds of changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted June 1, 2010 at 12:18 AM Report Share Posted June 1, 2010 at 12:18 AM But, see RONR (10th ed.), p. 580, ll. 26-31, for an example of a resolution that would authorize the secretary to make these kinds of changes.The cited langaige is in conjcuntion with a pending bylaws amendment. I am not so sure it would be proper to adopt such a motion if there were no amendments pending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 1, 2010 at 06:49 AM Report Share Posted June 1, 2010 at 06:49 AM The cited langaige is in conjcuntion with a pending bylaws amendment. I am not so sure it would be proper to adopt such a motion if there were no amendments pending.I think such a motion would still be in order, but it would then need to follow the same rules as an amendment to the Bylaws (notice, vote, etc.) For this reason, it is more convenient to make such a motion while an amendment is pending, but it is not required to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted June 1, 2010 at 04:12 PM Report Share Posted June 1, 2010 at 04:12 PM I think such a motion would still be in order, but it would then need to follow the same rules as an amendment to the Bylaws (notice, vote, etc.) For this reason, it is more convenient to make such a motion while an amendment is pending, but it is not required to do so.I am not sure that is supported by the RONR language, but I have to admit it makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted June 1, 2010 at 06:14 PM Report Share Posted June 1, 2010 at 06:14 PM The cited langaige [sic] is in conjcuntion [sic] with a pending bylaws amendment. I am not so sure it would be proper to adopt such a motion if there were no amendments pending.I'm glad you brought this up, Weldon. I think my understanding always has been that RONR (10th ed.), p. 580, ll. 19-30, applies to technical and conforming corrections to an adopted amendment to the bylaws not involving any change in meaning, while ll. 7-15 refer to purely mechanical corrections to a pending question. I admit, though, that my interpretation makes it seem like two different things are sewn together awkwardly in the same paragraph, so you may well be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 2, 2010 at 09:20 PM Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 at 09:20 PM I'm glad you brought this up, Weldon. I think my understanding always has been that RONR (10th ed.), p. 580, ll. 19-30, applies to technical and conforming corrections to an adopted amendment to the bylaws not involving any change in meaning, while ll. 7-15 refer to purely mechanical corrections to a pending question. I admit, though, that my interpretation makes it seem like two different things are sewn together awkwardly in the same paragraph, so you may well be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2010 at 09:28 PM Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 at 09:28 PM My understanding of RONR is that the corrections may be bade without notification and voting.A number of things apply: RONR is referred to if there is no bylaw or rule directing such action. Following that, common sense should prevail. If this posting is "to late to make corrections you won't compllete the task". Common sense would suggest I am free to correct the errors so that it's not "too late to make corrections, you won't complete the task". I believe the above reference refers to correcting scriver's errors ant the best way to resolve this is to introduce the motion to make it a Standing Rule.I have a blank page in the middle of my bylaws for no good reason. I intend to fix this without question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted June 2, 2010 at 09:31 PM Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 at 09:31 PM I have a blank page in the middle of my bylaws for no good reason.No, you don't. You may have a blank page in your copy of the bylaws but that's not the same thing. The map is not the territory. The bylaws are found in the minutes.So put as many, or as few, blank pages in your copy as you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2010 at 09:35 PM Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 at 09:35 PM "The bylaws are found in the minutes."Interesting way to look at this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 2, 2010 at 09:37 PM Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 at 09:37 PM My understanding of RONR is that the corrections may be bade without notification and voting.No, though a motion can be adopted at the time to correct the text, which has been cited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2010 at 09:46 PM Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 at 09:46 PM No, though a motion can be adopted at the time to correct the text, which has been cited.OK, but then I believe an officer is not supposed to make the motion. One couldd bring it to the attention of the Chair who could "entertain a motion", but it also leaves the Secretary suspect as "not having any friends" to present the motion on the officer's behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted June 2, 2010 at 10:42 PM Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 at 10:42 PM I believe an officer is not supposed to make the motion.What gave you that idea? An officer, if a member of the assembly, has as much right to make a motion as anyone else. The only caveats are that the presiding officer (except in a committee or a small board) normally should not make motions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2010 at 10:53 PM Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 at 10:53 PM What gave you that idea? An officer, if a member of the assembly, has as much right to make a motion as anyone else. The only caveats are that the presiding officer (except in a committee or a small board) normally should not make motions.OK, I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.