stature

Thank you for your input and for the suggestions on how to fix it. The subsequent proposal would not be impacted by going back to the bylaw sentence the way it was meant to be, and the new change can take effect if it is voted for. The problem was just repeating the scrivenor's error bylaw and what happens when it continues to be repeated especially with respect to other proposed changes. Fixing should be easy given the scrivenor error can be compared to the good documentation in the minutes.

The text is 'officers are limited to two four-year terms, and after another period of four years can apply again..." The scrivenors error is that the text that was not supposed to be included: " (specific officer position) is limited to two four-year terms, and after another period of four years can apply again..." The scrivenors error was never passed. Now the error appears in a new proposed bylaw change but the error is not identified as a change or something new to be voted on along with the highlighted changes in the bylaws up for vote. The effect is that under the scrivenors error bylaw people can rotate among different officer positions without waiting out for 4 years before they apply for a position again. The true bylaw is that limited people to 2 terms of any officer position, once the 2 terms are up, they have to wait 4 years to apply again to be officer. The erroneous bylaw appears in minutes as rejected. So the question is whether including that erroneous bylaw sentence in another bylaw proposal legitimized it, even though the erroneous bylaw isn't called out as a change, and was just copied along with the other parts of a section. The changes for the new proposal were highlighted to be voted on, not the erroneous sentence.

Hi - please let me know what sections of Robert's Rules of Order 11th ed. are relevant to this situation: One of the bylaws has a scrivener's error. The bylaws state they include Robert's Rules of Order 11th ed. Before the scrivenor's error is corrected, another bylaw change was proposed that copied the contents of the bylaw text containing the scrivenor's error along with the new proposed changes. Is the scrivenor's error now legitimate and no longer a 'scrivenor's error' ?

Bylaws allow the Board to vote for bylaws amendments to be submitted by mail with a ballot to members between conventions. Facts The Board votes to make amendments and as per bylaws to send it to members. Amendments are grouped and referred to by topic on the ballot without reference to any bylaw numbers, and the topic group consists of topics that can be separately voted on without affect on the other bylaws in the grouping. Question: Can a member assert a demand for separate consideration as per RONR p 274 l.31 to 275 on grouped together proposed bylaw amendments sent by mail? "...one or more of the several resolutions must receive separate consideration and vote at the request of a single member...." ((The demand for separate consideration doesn't need a second and isn't debated , so can that demand apply to a voting by mail on proposed lumped together bylaw amendments - a demand that it be separated?))