Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Using Scope For Bylaws Changes


Guest Carl Guest

Recommended Posts

Our proposed amended Bylaws (the current Bylaws contains the requirements for changes and amendment to have 25 days notice and 2/3 vote) contain an entirely new section that calls for a standing committee to create rules for the Association that are consistent with the objectives of the Association and its Bylaws. It calls for the rules to be enacted, changed or amended by a majority vote of the membership, at a regular or special meeting, without notice. Questions: 1) Citing Scope, can we change this by inserting (via majority vote) the word "with" in place of the word "without", in regard to "notice".......at the Bylaws meeting. 2) Again, citing scope, can we simply eliminate the new Standing Rules section from the proposed new bylaws via majority vote? 3) Citing Scope, can we reject any changes from any particular amendment by striking and reverting back to the current Bylaws via majority vote.

 

Since there are a great deal of amendments to be dealt with, our purpose is that we want to pass as many sections as we can and avoid potentially voting down the entire Bylaws package. Final passing or rejecting of each section by 2/3, after being amended or not within scope is another option. The problem then, of course, is that we could create a conflict in something previously passed. Personally I think that potential problem is small and would be fixable. The first Bylaws meeting took 5 hours and we got through line 99 of 600 and decided to continue the meeting next week. It's a conundrum.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No that is not the case but understandable that you go there. There are many parts of the by laws that are remaining without change and therefore not subject to change without notice at the Bylaws meeting. But there are certainly a large number of proposed amendments. It's been established this is not a revision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your first question is difficult to answer without knowing exactly what your bylaws now say (in their entirety) and exactly what this proposed new section says, and I'm not sure that it is feasible to attempt to handle this here in this forum.

 

I'm also not sure that I understand your second and third questions. A proposed bylaw amendment cannot be amended by striking it out in its entirety. It can be postponed indefinitely by majority vote, or it can simply be defeated when the vote is taken on its adoption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be postponed indefinitely by majority vote, or it can simply be defeated when the vote is taken on its adoption.


 


Two things in this regard. The procedure we are using calls for discussion and possible changes of the proposed changes, via scope, with each section of the Bylaws. When that is completed, we will vote up or down the entire document by 2/3 vote. I am asking 1) since this section is not in the current Bylaws, considering that scope is a quantitative range, eliminate this new section by majority vote since it currently is zero, i.e. not in existence in the current Bylaws. Let me be clear, I am not pushing this position, I am trying to understand the scope of scope? Scope very dicey when considering words not numbers.


 


Are you suggesting that we can, by majority, postpone this section and proceed to pass or fail by 2/3 the whole document minus the posponed section?


 


My last question is asking if we can final pass or fail each section (after potential changes via scope are rejected or accepted for that particular section) by the 2/3 required rather than wait until end of the process. This may be a wise course considering that we have several complex sections. We can always backtrack if giving final passage to a section wind up confilcting later on in the document.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It can be postponed indefinitely by majority vote, or it can simply be defeated when the vote is taken on its adoption.

 

Two things in this regard. The procedure we are using calls for discussion and possible changes of the proposed changes, via scope, with each section of the Bylaws. When that is completed, we will vote up or down the entire document by 2/3 vote. I am asking 1) since this section is not in the current Bylaws, considering that scope is a quantitative range, eliminate this new section by majority vote since it currently is zero, i.e. not in existence in the current Bylaws. Let me be clear, I am not pushing this position, I am trying to understand the scope of scope? Scope very dicey when considering words not numbers.

 

Are you suggesting that we can, by majority, postpone this section and proceed to pass or fail by 2/3 the whole document minus the posponed section?

 

My last question is asking if we can final pass or fail each section (after potential changes via scope are rejected or accepted for that particular section) by the 2/3 required rather than wait until end of the process. This may be a wise course considering that we have several complex sections. We can always backtrack if giving final passage to a section wind up confilcting later on in the document.

 

 

No, I am not suggesting that you can, by majority vote, postpone one section and proceed to pass or fail by 2/3 the whole document minus the postponed section.

 

If you are not considering a general revision (and you say that you are not), I'm not at all sure what it is that you are doing. In any event, I think that I can safely say that any subsidiary motion to amend a proposed amendment to the bylaws which will leave the existing bylaws unchanged will not violate the "scope of notice" rules, and if otherwise in order can be adopted by a majority vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the clarification of postponement.

 

What we are doing is not wiping the slate clean and therefore not proposing an entirely new set of Bylaws. That said, there seem to be changes in the majority of articles in the current Bylaws. Only those parts of the current articles/sections where changes are actually proposed, are on the table and subject to further amendment within the notice of scope. In the case of the Standing Rules, that is a new article in and of itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we are doing is not wiping the slate clean and therefore not proposing an entirely new set of Bylaws. That said, there seem to be changes in the majority of articles in the current Bylaws. Only those parts of the current articles/sections where changes are actually proposed, are on the table and subject to further amendment within the notice of scope. In the case of the Standing Rules, that is a new article in and of itself.

 

You seem to be trying to mix and match the rules for a revision and for individual amendments, which either suggests that your assembly has special rules on this subject, or you're simply doing it wrong.

 

Under RONR, if a revision is considered, then as you say earlier, each section is perfected by amendment and a final vote is taken on the entire document at the end. In such a case, the concept of scope of notice does not apply, and any amendment is in order. If you use individual amendments, then a separate vote is taken on each amendment, and the concept of scope of notice applies. You can't have it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be trying to mix and match the rules for a revision and for individual amendments, which either suggests that your assembly has special rules on this subject, or you're simply doing it wrong.

 

Under RONR, if a revision is considered, then as you say earlier, each section is perfected by amendment and a final vote is taken on the entire document at the end. In such a case, the concept of scope of notice does not apply, and any amendment is in order. If you use individual amendments, then a separate vote is taken on each amendment, and the concept of scope of notice applies. You can't have it both ways.

 

Well, I suppose a number of independent bylaw amendments may be offered by a single main motion in accordance with the rules on page 110 and pages 274-75.

 

If this is what has happened, then it would appear that any member can demand that the proposed amendment to add the new article relating to standing rules be taken up and voted on separately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therfore, if I understand it, with Revision every word is on the table, scope does not apply and when the entire document has been discussed and possibly amended according to the rules, the entire document is then voted up or down with 2/3 vote needed to pass. However if a body is amending exisitng bylaws, notice of scope of the proposed amendments is sent to membership and at the meeting, each properly noticed changes/amendments are discuss and potentially further amended within scope, by majority vote.......and then the question becomes.......is each amendment then upon for final pass or fail by 2/3 vote individually as you through them or do you wait until all the proposed amended articles are discussed and a acted upon with scope and then vote the enitre document pass fail by 2/3 vote all at one time. This forum seems to indicate the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therfore, if I understand it, with Revision every word is on the table, scope does not apply and when the entire document has been discussed and possibly amended according to the rules, the entire document is then voted up or down with 2/3 vote needed to pass. However if a body is amending exisitng bylaws, notice of scope of the proposed amendments is sent to membership and at the meeting, each properly noticed changes/amendments are discuss and potentially further amended within scope, by majority vote.......and then the question becomes.......is each amendment then upon for final pass or fail by 2/3 vote individually as you through them or do you wait until all the proposed amended articles are discussed and a acted upon with scope and then vote the enitre document pass fail by 2/3 vote all at one time. This forum seems to indicate the latter.

 

When individual amendments are submitted, each motion is voted on separately.

 

As Mr. Honemann has noted, however, it is possible to group several individual amendments (perhaps even all of them) into a single motion. In such a case, however, any amendments on unrelated subject must be considered separately at the demand of a single member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...