Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Proper form of Amend


David A Foulkes

Recommended Posts

A proposed bylaw amendment (submission form) to be considered at our upcoming convention contains two sentences. The first sentence is a new line to be added at the end of the existing bylaw. The second sentence, included on the bylaw amendment submission form but not as part of the amendment itself but more as a proviso, is "If this bylaw passes, it is to take effect immediately."

I expect to move to Amend the proposed amendment, changing the text of the first sentence rather substantially, and changing the second sentence (the proviso) to "If this bylaw passes, it is to take effect at adjournment of the convention."

I believe my motion to Amend will not be to strike out and insert, but rather to substitute, and that by employing this approach, I can Amend both sentences in one motion, even though the first nine words of the proviso remain the same. If it were only one sentence I was amending, I think strike out and insert could work, but because I plan to amend the actual text of the amendment as well as the proviso, and they are two separate sentences, I'm not so sure it works for that.

Am I correct in this - substitute, not strike out and insert - to modify both sentences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A proposed bylaw amendment (submission form) to be considered at our upcoming convention contains two sentences. The first sentence is a new line to be added at the end of the existing bylaw. The second sentence, included on the bylaw amendment submission form but not as part of the amendment itself but more as a proviso, is "If this bylaw passes, it is to take effect immediately."

I expect to move to Amend the proposed amendment, changing the text of the first sentence rather substantially, and changing the second sentence (the proviso) to "If this bylaw passes, it is to take effect at adjournment of the convention."

I believe my motion to Amend will not be to strike out and insert, but rather to substitute, and that by employing this approach, I can Amend both sentences in one motion, even though the first nine words of the proviso remain the same. If it were only one sentence I was amending, I think strike out and insert could work, but because I plan to amend the actual text of the amendment as well as the proviso, and they are two separate sentences, I'm not so sure it works for that.

Am I correct in this - substitute, not strike out and insert - to modify both sentences?

Well, the old proviso was not required at all, because amendments by default take effect immediately. But if it's there, it's there.

Yes, you can treat this as a substitute. But is there some reason why both of these changes must be done at the same time, in one motion? Are you prevented from offering them as two amendments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the old proviso was not required at all, because amendments by default take effect immediately. But if it's there, it's there.

Yes, you can treat this as a substitute. But is there some reason why both of these changes must be done at the same time, in one motion? Are you prevented from offering them as two amendments?

Long story short: it's our State convention and if you knew how it's run, you wouldn't want to leave anything to chance. (As it is, I'll likely go through my quota of Points of Order this year.) Thus, trying to accomplish both changes (amendment and proviso) in one swell foop. I'd rather use strike and insert, as I'm not sure they'll even know about substitute, but just in case, I don't want to get shot down on this for using the incorrect Amend method.

Yes, I know it's fell swoop, but I like my version better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long story short: it's our State convention and if you knew how it's run, you wouldn't want to leave anything to chance. (As it is, I'll likely go through my quota of Points of Order this year.) Thus, trying to accomplish both changes (amendment and proviso) in one swell foop. I'd rather use strike and insert, as I'm not sure they'll even know about substitute, but just in case, I don't want to get shot down on this for using the incorrect Amend method.

Yes, I know it's fell swoop, but I like my version better.

Based upon what you have posted so far, I think you are on the right track.

If the proposed bylaw amendment and its proviso are offered in the form of a single motion or resolution, your proposed amendment can be offered in the form of a motion to substitute for it your own proposed bylaw amendment, together with its proviso.

It does appear that the proviso submitted with the proposed bylaw amendment is not in order, so perhaps it will be withdrawn or struck out before your proposed substitute is offered. Even if this is the case, your proposed substitute may contain its own proviso that it not go into effect until the close of the convention (but couch it in the language suggested on p. 578, ll. 29-31).

We assume you have no scope of notice problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We assume you have no scope of notice problem?

Would a proposed proviso fall under the scope-of-notice restriction?

Since the default is that an adopted amendment goes into effect immediately, would a proposed proviso establish an outer limit beyond which the assembly could not go without violating the scope of the notice?

For example, if the proviso said "adjournment of the meeting", would "first of the year" be beyond the scope and, therefore, improper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would a proposed proviso fall under the scope-of-notice restriction?

Since the default is that an adopted amendment goes into effect immediately, would a proposed proviso establish an outer limit beyond which the assembly could not go without violating the scope of the notice?

For example, if the proviso said "adjournment of the meeting", would "first of the year" be beyond the scope and, therefore, improper?

Well, suffice it to say that a proviso delaying the time at which a bylaw amendment goes into effect, as Mr. Foulkes proposes here, would not go beyond the scope of notice.

My concern was with the substance of his proposed substitute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based upon what you have posted so far, I think you are on the right track.

Thank you. To go much further into providing any further information would pretty much require me to post the actual bylaw amendment, existing bylaw, and reasons for my desire to change it, all of which are of course discouraged here. Ergo, I'm trying to keep this discussion within the realm of RONR.

It does appear that the proviso submitted with the proposed bylaw amendment is not in order, so perhaps it will be withdrawn or struck out before your proposed substitute is offered. Even if this is the case, your proposed substitute may contain its own proviso that it not go into effect until the close of the convention (but couch it in the language suggested on p. 578, ll. 29-31).

Unfortunately, the bylaws already include language equivalent to p.578 ll. 23-25, so the proviso ventures beyond out-of-order into redundancy. But there it is. And it does need to be "reversed" into the language which your citation provides.

I do not expect the amendment to be withdrawn, but would it be possible for the proposing member to alter the proviso accordingly before it is placed before the assembly for discussion and vote? My concern is that amendments must be submitted to the Secretary no less than 60 days in advance of the convention, and I know for a fact that delegate packages have been sent out including the proposed amendments. To change it through any process other than Amending it at the time seems to be some possible violation of notice. So, I'm thinking that we have what we have, and must go forward with it until it is pending. But if in fact the proposing member could change it now, before the convention, I would pursue that.

We assume you have no scope of notice problem?

I'm fairly confident this is not an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not expect the amendment to be withdrawn, but would it be possible for the proposing member to alter the proviso accordingly before it is placed before the assembly for discussion and vote?

It seems to me that the proposed bylaw amendment should be offered at the convention without its proviso. This is the reason why I indicated that your substitute may nevertheless be offered together with its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, you say that you want to keep this discussion within the realm of RONR (and so do I). As a consequence, I am expressing no opinion as to what effect, if any, your bylaw provision including language equivalent to p. 578 ll. 23-25 may have on this question. I suppose none, but I haven't read your bylaws and don't intend to. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, you say that you want to keep this discussion within the realm of RONR (and so do I). As a consequence, I am expressing no opinion as to what effect, if any, your bylaw provision including language equivalent to p. 578 ll. 23-25 may have on this question. I suppose none, but I haven't read your bylaws and don't intend to. :)

Well, I don't intend to post them, so there! Nyah nyah nyah.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the proposed bylaw amendment should be offered at the convention without its proviso.

I agree that the proviso should not have been included, but it was. So, since it has been submitted in this format, according to current bylaw submission timing requirements, and has been distributed to the delegates, it is too late to do anything about that now until it becomes pending at the convention, correct? That is, the author cannot change it now, can he? I would think that would in some fashion violate the requirement of notice, presenting at the convention an amendment different from that which was distributed in the delegate packets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the proviso should not have been included, but it was. So, since it has been submitted in this format, according to current bylaw submission timing requirements, and has been distributed to the delegates, it is too late to do anything about that now until it becomes pending at the convention, correct? That is, the author cannot change it now, can he? I would think that would in some fashion violate the requirement of notice, presenting at the convention an amendment different from that which was distributed in the delegate packets.

As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, there is no reason why a motion for adoption of the proposed bylaw amendment cannot be offered without its proviso. As I indicated, it seems to me that this is what should happen (absent other relevant facts you haven't told us about).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...