Voting on part of a new Constitution before the Constitution vote

[Steve Ward]

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

 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

 

21 minutes ago, Steve Ward said:

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. 

A revision could be amended (see RONR 11th ed, p. 593).

[Hieu H. Huynh]

If the members don't want Change B, they could vote against it.

[Gary Novosielski]

29 minutes ago, Steve Ward said:

The vote will be an "all or nothing" vote - we accept the new Constitution in its entirety, or we don't. 

Where did this idea come from?  Whatever is presented can be amended.  Who are these people that are doing all this deciding, and why are you allowing them to get away with it?  

There's not thing legitimate about someone telling you that there will be an "all or nothing" vote, unless there's something in the current bylaws that says so.  If there is, here's your chance to get rid of it.

[Steve Ward]

6 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

If the members don't want Change B, they could vote against it.

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

[Steve Ward]

5 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Where did this idea come from?  Whatever is presented can be amended.  Who are these people that are doing all this deciding, and why are you allowing them to get away with it?  

There's not thing legitimate about someone telling you that there will be an "all or nothing" vote, unless there's something in the current bylaws that says so.  If there is, here's your chance to get rid of it.

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)

[Dan Honemann]

As best I can determine, there is nothing wrong (procedurally) with the manner in which your committee and council propose to present the proposed amendments, as you describe it. There's surely nothing "crazy" about it.

 

[Joshua Katz]

8 hours ago, Steve Ward said:

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?) 

I don't think so.  What does seem crazy, as my colleagues have noted, is the idea that the whole thing must be voted up or down without amendment.  Is there some reason they can do that in your rules?

8 hours ago, Steve Ward said:

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 don't see how you can stop the vote on this particular amendment from happening.  What you can do is insist that the whole document is open to amendment during its consideration.  The way to deal with individual provisions you don't like is to amend them or vote them down (when, as you indicate, they are presented individually).  

[Steve Ward]

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

 

[Josh Martin]

10 minutes ago, Steve Ward said:

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.

Just to be sure we are clear on this point, when the “new Constitution” (which RONR refers to as a “revision”) is pending, amendments to the revision are in order. It is not an “up or down vote.”

[Steve Ward]

56 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

I don't think so.  What does seem crazy, as my colleagues have noted, is the idea that the whole thing must be voted up or down without amendment.  Is there some reason they can do that in your rules?

I don't see how you can stop the vote on this particular amendment from happening.  What you can do is insist that the whole document is open to amendment during its consideration.  The way to deal with individual provisions you don't like is to amend them or vote them down (when, as you indicate, they are presented individually).  

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

 

[George Mervosh]

16 minutes ago, Steve Ward said:

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. 

Does some rule in your governing documents mandate this "no discussion or amendments" procedure?  If not, it's not a valid procedure unless the assembly moves to suspend the rules and adopt the document (2/3 vote required)  See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 266-267.

[Steve Ward]

28 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Just to be sure we are clear on this point, when the “new Constitution” (which RONR refers to as a “revision”) is pending, amendments to the revision are in order. It is not an “up or down vote.”

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

[Steve Ward]

3 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

Does some rule in your governing documents mandate this "no discussion or amendments" procedure?  If not, it's not a valid procedure unless the assembly moves to suspend the rules and adopt the document (2/3 vote required)  See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 266-267.

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

 

[George Mervosh]

28 minutes ago, Steve Ward said:

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

 

Well make sure you add the "unless" part in my earlier reply.  The assembly can agree to adopt it without debate or amendment, but that procedure cannot be imposed upon them by the presiding officer or whatever faction is pushing it.

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Steve Ward said:

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. 

 

So you've said, but why?  There's certainly no such rule in RONR.  You are considering a revision, which is notice that the entire document will be open to amendment without scope of notice limitations, before being voted on (unless the organization decides to do something different).  

[Richard Brown]

Agreeing with my colleagues, this "new constitution" (which is what a revision is) is subject to amendment prior to adoption just like any other motion is.   It really doesn't matter if it is an amendment of only one bylaw or constitution provision, a complete revision, or a "new constitution" (which, again, is a revision).... each and every part of it is subject to amendment unless you have some superior rule that prohibits amendments.  In fact, it is even more susceptible to amendment than most other motions because there is no "scope of notice" requirement when considering a revision (a new set of bylaws or constitution).  Every part of it is wide open to amendments.  No subordinate group (such as your board) or group of people (such as your officers) can prohibit amendments or require an "up or down vote". 

As others have said, the assembly can suspend the rules by a two thirds vote to prohibit amendments, but this cannot be imposed upon the membership.  The membership itself must vote to suspend the rules to prohibit amendments.  And doing that requires a two-thirds vote of the membership.

Edited February 28, 2018 at 05:28 PM by Richard Brown
Claified that there is no "scope of notice" as to amendments

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Steve Ward said:

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.

What you are describing is exactly what RONR refers to as a revision, and amendments are in order.

“Changes of the bylaws that are so extensive and general that they are scattered throughout the bylaws should be effected through the substitution of an entirely new set of bylaws, called a revision. Notice of such a revision is notice that a new document will be submitted that will be open to amendment as fully as if the society were adopting bylaws for the first time.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 593)

Edited February 28, 2018 at 07:07 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

18 hours ago, Steve Ward said:

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)

Yes, I think I understood all of that from your original question, but I still don't see why these proposals are take-it-or-leave-it.  When considering a revision in the constitution, members are free to offer amendments to change anything they find objectionable, or add things that they feel belong there.  Is there some rule preventing you from doing this?

In general, keep in mind that at a membership meeting, the membership is in control of the meeting.  Committees and boards do not dictate things  to the membership.  It is quite the reverse, if the rules in RONR apply.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

20 hours ago, Steve Ward said:

The vote will be an "all or nothing" vote - we accept the new Constitution in its entirety, or we don't.

There is no such thing under RONR. You are concerned about the committee trying to get one amendment passed first. What I would worry about is this mistaken notion that your assembly can be prevented from amending the proposed revision. It can't unless your current Constitution says so.

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm concerned with the apparent ease which which you have been "led to believe" things that are not so.  Whoever is doing this leading is someone whose advice is apparently not up to acceptable standards.

[Benjamin Geiger]

42 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Whoever is doing this leading is someone whose advice is apparently not up to acceptable standards.

I'm leaning toward "... is someone who stands to benefit from the change."

[Guest Zev]

10 hours ago, Steve Ward said:

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.

If additional changes are desired to the current Constitution all such individual amendments must have notice in the call to the meeting. If only change "B" has notice then only change "B" can be contemplated. The fact that a revision is also covered by the call does not mean that changes "A," "C," and "D" that are incorporated in that revision somehow come up if the revision is defeated; they themselves must have their individual notice in order to be considered as changes to the current Constitution. (Did I get this right, guys?)

[Joshua Katz]

31 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

If additional changes are desired to the current Constitution all such individual amendments must have notice in the call to the meeting. If only change "B" has notice then only change "B" can be contemplated. The fact that a revision is also covered by the call does not mean that changes "A," "C," and "D" that are incorporated in that revision somehow come up if the revision is defeated; they themselves must have their individual notice in order to be considered as changes to the current Constitution. (Did I get this right, guys?)

I think so.  "[W]hile the revision can be rejected altogether, leaving the old bylaws intact, the old document cannot be altered with a view to retaining it in a changed form."  I think you'd need to give separate notice, as a result.  

 

[Gary Novosielski]

3 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I think so.  "[W]hile the revision can be rejected altogether, leaving the old bylaws intact, the old document cannot be altered with a view to retaining it in a changed form."  I think you'd need to give separate notice, as a result.  

 

That provision has always bothered me. I understand that the old document is not pending, but if the revision may be freely altered in any way prior to being adopted, what is to prevent someone from amending the revision by striking it and substituting the old document, or the old document with a  minor change, which, if agreed to, could in turn be amended?