Dan Honemann

🙂

Yep, non-existent rules cannot affect the rights of absentees, but this truism tells us nothing at all about whether or not rules which do exist affect the rights of absentees. If (as I believe to be the case), under the rules in RONR a member who gave notice of his intent to make a motion to amend something previously adopted is permitted to make a different motion so long as it falls within the scope of the notice given, this can in no way violate the rights of absentees anymore than does the rule which allows subsidiary amendments to be made so long as they make no change going beyond the scope of the notice given. In other words, although it may be that I'm wrong (although I'm becoming more and more convinced that I'm not) and that, under the rules in RONR, a member who gave notice of his intent to make a motion to amend something previously adopted is not permitted to make a different motion even if it falls within the scope of the notice given, the rights of absentees have got nothing at all to do with it.

Notice might be given to amend Article X, "Committees", by striking out Sections 3 and 4 (which create two different committees having nothing to do with each other), and the motion actually made may be to strike out only Section 3.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Mr. Katz. 🙂 However, I must hasten to add that there appears to be no clear-cut answer to be found in RONR, and I'm not at all prepared to say that there should be no doubt but that my take on this is the correct one.

The question asked, as I understand it, was: In cases when previous notice is required, such as for Bylaws amendments, can changes be unilaterally made after notice is given, but before the motion to amend is introduced, assuming that the changes under contemplation are within the scope of the original notice. I'm not sure how the responses which have been posted can be characterized as "2 for, 1 maybe, and 2 against", but in any event, as I indicated, I think the answer is yes. As I understand the facts provided, no attempt to withdraw the notice which was given is involved.

As noted, a marginal notation is fine (and probably a good idea), but make no change at all in the body of the original minutes that were previously approved.

If we assume that your organization's rules empower its parliamentarian to make rulings of this kind (nothing in Robert's Rules of Order grants him such power), it may well be that his ruling was reasonable. Failure to specify in a requisite notice exactly where in the bylaws a proposed new section is to be inserted may render the notice ineffective, depending, I suppose, upon the particular facts involved. Under the rules in RONR, rulings of this kind must be made by the presiding officer during a meeting, and are appealable. I don't know if your organization's rules make any provision for appealing rulings made by its parliamentarian.

You submitted a new section (stating exactly what it was to say) to be inserted into the bylaws, but failed to say where?

I suppose it is conceivable that the motion as made could fall so far short of the motion for which notice was given that a subsidiary motion to amend, although within the scope of notice given, would not be germane to the motion actually made. In such an event, the desired result could be obtained by the making of a separate main motion, since such a motion would still be within the scope of the notice given.

I see no reason why a motion cannot be offered that differs from, but is within the limits of, the one for which notice was given, as Mr. McLean has suggested is the case. If this happens, any subsidiary motion to amend will be in order which is within the permissible bounds of the notice given, and not just within the bounds of the motion made. Perhaps specific examples might prove to be helpful.

Maybe, maybe not. For example, adoption of a motion to rescind or amend what was previously declared to have been adopted may require something more than a majority vote. Or it may well be that, although a majority may not be opposed to the motion that was declared to have been adopted, they may be convinced that there was, in fact, no quorum present when the vote was taken on it. As previously noted, much depends upon the specific facts involved.

I'd be inclined to state this in a different way. For example, if all members are present one might say that it will be "easier" to obtain a majority vote of the entire membership than a two-thirds vote, but, of course, a two-thirds vote, even if not a majority of the entire membership, will suffice. In other words, I think it's better to say that either one will suffice.

But not many, I'm sure.

In my opinion: 1. Yes, you should include the making of motion A in the minutes of that portion of the regular meeting that preceded the executive session because that is when it was made. These minutes should also reflect the fact that the meeting went into executive session while this motion was pending. These minutes should also reflect the time of adjournment, even although the meeting was adjourned while in executive session. 2. Amendment B should not be included in the minutes of that portion of the regular meeting that preceded the executive session. This proposed amendment, the fact that it was ruled out of order by the chair and the reasons given by the chair for this ruling, and the fact that this ruling was sustained on appeal, should all be included in the minutes covering that portion of the meeting that was held in executive session. 3. The fact that motion A was postponed to the next meeting should be reflected only in the minutes covering that portion of the meeting that was held in executive session, and these minutes should also reflect the time of adjournment.

And I was under the impression that no motion has as yet been made. 🙂

See you there.

Well, there can be no doubt but that your district convention can't suspend the rules of your State Central Committee (unless, of course, the rules of your State Central Committee say you can). 🙂

It's just common sense, isn't it? In any event, see General Robert's response in Q&A 184 on pages 476-77 in PL.

I think it bears upon the question as to whether or not the proposed revision will be open to amendment going beyond the extent of changes included in the proposed revision.

But what was it that prompted you to say that this committee "went past its charge, and created a completely new set of bylaws (a revision)"? (Emphasis added.)

Yes, I think this is exactly right. The problem is that the current wording of this sentence is a bit awkward. 🙂

Well, what makes more sense to me is to understand that motions to make unanimous a ballot vote that was not unanimous are not inherently improper.

If, at this convention, the motion that was made to suspend the rules in order to permit election by plurality vote was adopted, it seems to me that anyone declared elected, even if elected only by a plurality vote, must be understood to have been duly elected. As a matter of fact, I think that anyone declared elected at the convention only by a plurality vote must be understood to have been duly elected even if no motion had been adopted to suspend the rules. In other words, I think that rules relating to the vote required to elect or to adopt a motion are rules of order, and that the rule that a majority vote is required to elect or to adopt a motion is not a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

I agree with Mr. Wynn that it is first necessary to obtain all relevant details concerning exactly what it was that this committee was charged with doing, in view of the fact that it has been stated that the committee "went past its charge, and created a completely new set of bylaws (a revision)." This thread may be of interest in this connection.

Well, your committee itself should be involved only in the production of its own report, and not in the production of minority reports.