consequence of a failure to pass a proposed amendment to a governance document

[Guest perplexed]

When a motion to change the provisions in a governance document like BYLAWS fails are there any acceptable conclusions a governing body can draw other than  to acknowledge that no language changes have been approved.  For instance, can the failure to insert the word "independent" to modify the newsletter in the following sentence "The Co-op Voice is the Memeber-Owners monthly newsletter" be assumed to mean that the member disagreed the newsletter should be independent?

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

I wonder what possible context impels this governing body to divine the motivations of the voters. Are you asking if failure to brand the newsletter "independent" means that the newsletter is thereby prohibited from becoming independent?

[Joshua Katz]

I recall there being some back-and-forth on possibly related topics here, but my opinion is that failing to act is not an action, and no inferences can be drawn.  (Among other reasons, I say that because ordinary main motions can fail on a tie vote, and if that meant the assembly had taken action, we'd have action by fewer than a majority.)  However, like GWCTD, I wonder why this needs to be determined.  It's possible I'll have a different opinion if you tell us what exactly you're trying to do.

[Dan Honemann]

11 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I recall there being some back-and-forth on possibly related topics here, but my opinion is that failing to act is not an action, and no inferences can be drawn.  (Among other reasons, I say that because ordinary main motions can fail on a tie vote, and if that meant the assembly had taken action, we'd have action by fewer than a majority.)  However, like GWCTD, I wonder why this needs to be determined.  It's possible I'll have a different opinion if you tell us what exactly you're trying to do.

Well, we know that when an assembly rejects a motion it has decided not to do what the motion proposes, and so we know that when an assembly rejects a motion to amend its bylaws in a certain way it has decided not to amend its bylaws in that way. 

Nothing very difficult to understand about any of this.

[Guest perplexed]

16 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

I wonder what possible context impels this governing body to divine the motivations of the voters. Are you asking if failure to brand the newsletter "independent" means that the newsletter is thereby prohibited from becoming independent?

Yes - the board is making that assertion.  The board wants to impose control over the newsletter and argues this vote means the members no longer want an independent newsletter - thus it is withholding resources.

[Joshua Katz]

21 minutes ago, Guest perplexed said:

Yes - the board is making that assertion.  The board wants to impose control over the newsletter and argues this vote means the members no longer want an independent newsletter - thus it is withholding resources.

Well, that seems silly (although if the board has the power to decide what resources go to the newsletter, it probably doesn't need a good reason, at least as far as parliamentary procedure is concerned).  It seems silly because all it means is that the members decided not to create such a bylaw.  It takes more than a majority to amend a bylaw, so it doesn't even follow that a majority doesn't want to add "independent" to the bylaw, let alone anything else.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/8/2018 at 5:55 PM, Guest perplexed said:

When a motion to change the provisions in a governance document like BYLAWS fails are there any acceptable conclusions a governing body can draw other than  to acknowledge that no language changes have been approved.  For instance, can the failure to insert the word "independent" to modify the newsletter in the following sentence "The Co-op Voice is the Memeber-Owners monthly newsletter" be assumed to mean that the member disagreed the newsletter should be independent?

No, it just means that the person didn't think that word should be written in the bylaws.  Similarly, it cannot be assumed that a member believes it may never be published on blue paper, just because a clause requiring blue paper was not included.