Steve Ward

Mr Mervosh, Thank you for your reply. To the best of my knowledge, there is no rule in our governing documents that mandates a "no discussion or amendments" procedure. (I will check with others to be sure.) I appreciate the reference in RONR, and I will inform others that this "all or nothing" vote on the new Constitution is not a valid procedure under RONR. Thanks again. - Steve

Mr. Martin, Thank you for your reply. You may be on to something. But when I say, "new Constitution", I mean more than just a bunch of amendments to the current Constitution. I mean a whole new built-from-the-ground-up Constitution bearing little resemblance to our current Constitution. It would take a full day or more to amend our current Constitution to make it look like the new Constitution. That being said, if RONR still considers this all-new Constitution a "revision", and amendments to this revision are in order, then that could help our cause. Because we've been led to believe that this all-new Constitution can only be voted on in its entirety, with no suggested amendments to it. If it does pass and becomes our new Constitution, then yes, at next year's convention we can vote on amendments to it, but many of us don't want it to begin with, especially after being told there will be no changes to it before it get presented for a vote. - Steve

Mr. Katz, Thank you for your reply. Since this totally new Constitution bears little resemblance to our current 10-year-old Constitution, we vote on it as is. No discussion or amendments about what parts of the new Constitution we like and don't like. We either vote to accept it as our new Constitution, or we vote it down. If it gets voted down, then we vote on amendments to our current Constitution. Please understand that there are two interest groups involved here. One group wants this brand new Constitution (to replace our current Constitution), and the other group does NOT want this brand new Constitution, but instead wants to amend the current Constitution. - Steve

Mr Honemann, Thank you for your reply. I never looked at it as a vote to amend our current Constitution before the new Constitution vote (since the new Constitution would have this voting procedure change in it), but I guess that's what it is. They never used the term "amend the current Constitution", but I guess that's exactly what they are doing. We were caught up in the way they're attempting to change our voting system (to match what would be in the new Constitution, and to gain many more votes) to realize it would also be an amendment to our current Constitution even if the new Constitution vote failed. If the new Constitution vote does not pass, the next issue of voting would be other amendments to the current Constitution. And maybe that's where we're upset - the order in which this is all being done: 1. Vote to amend current Constitution (with Change "B" - new voting system) 2. Vote on new Constitution (containing Changes A, B, C, and D) 3. If new Constitution vote passes, no more voting on amendment/Constitution issues. If new Constitution vote fails, we continue to vote on other amendments to our current Constitution. Since there is nothing wrong procedurally with what they are doing, we will focus on why this voting system change will not benefit our organization. Thanks again. - Steve

Mr. Novosielski, Thank you for your reply. Our current Constitution is over 10 years old and is in need of amending, and that's what myself and other like-minded members would like to do. However, members of our executive council want to scrap the current Constitution and start fresh with a brand new updated Constitution (with changes more in favor of their ideology, not surprisingly). So a Constitution committee was formed; they fashioned a brand new Constitution for our organization, and they want us to vote for it at convention instead of amending our old current Constitution. This committee is now getting the feeling their brand new Constitution is going to be voted down at convention, so out of desperation they want to pull the most favorable change out from the new Constitution (Change "B") and vote on it separately BEFORE voting on the new Constitution. (Crazy, right?) IF Change "B" does pass, then it will change how voting will be done, for the new Constitution AND other issues to be voted on. Even if passage of Change "B" doesn't help get enough votes to pass the new Constitution, it may certainly help get more votes for other issues to be voted on, and that's what they (executive council, Constitution committee, and others) want. They're acting out of desperation and trying to change the voting system (Change "B") in an effort to secure more votes for their new Constitution and other issues to be voted on. And trust me, their sales pitch for Change "B" will make the rank and file members think our organization will perish without this change. Those of us who can see the writing on the wall hope the "Change B" vote (and the new Constitution vote) will be voted down. We are educating our members about this situation. If what the Constitution committee/executive council is doing is somehow against Roberts Rules of Order, then we can stop the "Change B" vote from even happening. I appreciate your input, and I hope this helps explain the situation better. - Steve (Roberts Rules of Order newbie)

Mr. Huynh, Thank you for your reply. You are correct. The members could vote against Change B, and we hope that it is voted down, but if this type of vote violated Robert's Rules of Order, we could stop the vote from happening. - Steve

This is a bizarre situation but I hope I can find some help in this forum. The organization that I belong to will be voting on a new Constitution at convention. The new Constitution contains some big changes from the current Constitution. For the sake of simplicity, we'll label the changes A, B, C, and D. The vote will be an "all or nothing" vote - we accept the new Constitution in its entirety, or we don't. The people in the organization that are pushing for the new Constitution are becoming aware that their new Constitution will probably be voted down, so they have decided to pull the most important change out of the new Constitution (Change "B"), and vote on it separately as the first thing to be voted on at convention. Change "B" will change the way officers, amendments, etc. are voted on, and they want passage of Change "B" to take effect immediately, not after the end of convention like new officers. Since passage of Change "B" will take effect immediately, this could change the voting outcome of the new Constitution, in addition to other items to be voted on. Even if Change "B" is approved and the new Constitution is voted down, they still got what they want - the change in voting which will benefit them in the future. Many of us think this is downright shady, but does this violate any Robert's Rules of Order? Or is this perfectly legitimate? Thank you for your time. - Steve