Voting on part of a new Constitution before the Constitution vote

[Guest Zev]

Substituting the current Constitution or the current Constitution with only item "B" would in all likelihood be ruled out of order.

Usually we think of the amendment process as one in which the attempt is to improve the motion. In this particular case, however, the "item-B-only" crowd is trying to defeat the revision altogether. Perhaps Mr. Ward will consider the possibility of instructing his faction to move a sufficient number of amendments to the revision that would cause the entire document to become unpalatable to the majority and in the end be rejected.

[Dan Honemann]

8 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.  

 

 

4 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

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?

If a motion is properly made to substitute a set of bylaws for the originally proposed revision while it is pending, the chair has the option of accepting only amendments to the revision originally proposed, and then only amendments to the proposed substitute, and thereafter either type of secondary amendment (RONR, 11th ed., p. 154). If the motion to substitute is adopted, the substituted version cannot thereafter be amended except by adding something that does not modify its existing content. (RONR, 11th ed., p. 155)    

A revision should be considered seriatim unless the assembly votes to do otherwise. While a revision is being considered seriatim, "... it is not in order to move a substitute for the entire document until all of the paragraphs or sections have been individually considered and the point is reached when the chair announces that the entire paper is open to amendment." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 156) 

Now what, exactly, is it that bothers you about all this?  

 

[Richard Brown]

10 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

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?

Intriguing scenario. 

Edited to add:  I made the above post before having read mr. Honemann's post. Now I'm not really sure what to think. I guess I need to go back and carefully reread some responses. 

Edited March 1, 2018 at 05:26 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Weldon Merritt]

15 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.  

 

 

11 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

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?

Nothing at all, in my opinion, so long as the substitution is moved when no other primary amendment is pending.  But it would have to be the existing document with at least some change. Offering the existing document with no change would not be in order, since adopoting that would be equivalent to simply rejecting the proposed revision (leaving the existing doucument in effect).

[Gary Novosielski]

6 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Now what, exactly, is it that bothers you about all this?  

Well, what bothered me was the idea that the "old document cannot be altered with a view to retaining it in changed form."

While that can't be done right off the bat, there apparently are ways it can be accomplished, which I think is appropriate.  I can foresee a situation where, after fully considering a revision, the assembly may come to the conclusion that they would be better off with the old bylaws, with a few tweaks.  

This also reinforces my belief that the section on Amendment is the most complex, highly detailed, difficult (and simultaneously underestimated) portion of the Work, by far.   Quantum mechanics has nothing on Amendment.  :-)

[Josh Martin]

13 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

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?

It would not be in order to amend the revision by striking and substituting the old document, since if this amendment was adopted, adopting the revision would have the same effect as defeating the revision. An amendment which has the same effect as defeating the main motion is not in order.

It would conceivably be in order to propose an amendment which would substitute most of the language of the old document, but it is not correct that this “if agreed to, could in turn be amended.” A motion is not in order when the assembly has already decided the same question during the session. In the case of a motion to substitute, the effect is that the main motion, as amended, may only be changed by adding to it. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 161)

Therefore, if a motion is made to substitute a slightly-modified version of the existing document for the proposed document, members should offer their proposed changes to either proposed document as secondary amendments while the motion to substitute is pending.

Edited March 1, 2018 at 07:42 PM by Josh Martin