CornelR Posted January 9, 2016 at 08:36 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 at 08:36 PM State Rules committee meeting. Addressing three resolutions related to tidying up the rules regarding the Judicial committee. Someone moved an amendment to do away with the Judicial committee. Amendment passed. Judicial committee gone (if main body approves rules committee report). Seems not germane and addresses issues not in controversy in the main motion which was to adopt the particular rule change. I was not there so details are second hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted January 9, 2016 at 09:14 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 at 09:14 PM How was the Judicial Committee established? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 9, 2016 at 09:16 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 at 09:16 PM If nobody raised a "not germane" point of order at the time the "do away" amendment was offered, it (probably) is too late now. Points of order have to be timely. p. 250. However - and here is where "probably" comes in - if amendments to the rules require notice, then introducing an amendment that was not given notice (the "do away" amendment) may be an "absentee right" violation - p. 251 - setting up a continuing breach. That could be "point-of-ordered" anytime, next meeting. From what you write, it appears the "main body" will have a whack at all the (proposed?) amendments anyway, and could defeat that one, if it wished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornelR Posted January 9, 2016 at 09:44 PM Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 at 09:44 PM Judicial committee rule established by organization 5-6years ago by addition of the rule creating and defining it and its duties. Rethought germane issue - yes should have been raised timely. Believe it was probably germane as well since it addressed much of the text of the rules surrounding the procedures of the rules committee. The motion to amend and do away with it seems appropriate. The main body will indeed have a whack at it as well. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 9, 2016 at 10:18 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 at 10:18 PM Was/is this an amendment to the bylaws? If so, I'm more concerned about the "scope of notice" than gemaneness. It might indeed be germane in the sense that it is genuinely related to the original motion, but if it is a bylaw amendment, I suspect an amendment to abolish the judicial committee might have been outside the scope of notice, if notice of the original proposal was required or given. However, if the rules committee is merely making a recommendation that can be accepted or rejected by the "main body" (the membership?), then scope of the notice is probably not an issue. We don't know enough about your rules and procedures to venture an opinion on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornelR Posted January 9, 2016 at 10:37 PM Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 at 10:37 PM Not an amendment to bylaws rather to standing rules. Notice was given but scope addressed the vicissitudes of the procedures of the Judicial Committee. The amendment to abolish was on the motion to refer the rule changes proposed to a committee. (Again, I am reporting second-hand) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.