Field of dreams

I am checking that out with the Presiding Officer. However, since Gary N. suggested that it was legitimate for a committee to respond to a charge to amend, and come back with a revision, I thought that it was not a crucial point (to lead to the disregarding of their work). Do you see it differently?

Thank you all very much. You have helped me to better understand the process. I feel ready to advise the Presiding Officer regarding the way to proceed with presentation of the revision at Meeting 1, along with recognizing the bylaws committee chair to provide a highlight of the changes between the original and the revision. At Meeting 2, we can approach the revision seriatum, allowing for motions to amend (primary and secondary), ultimately voting on whether or not to accept the revision (as amended). My concern regarding "advance notice" was addressed both by Tim Wynn ("There is no scope of notice for a bylaw revision.") and Gary Novosielski ("For a revision, scope of notice considerations do not apply, as the scope is essentially infinite in breadth."). Gary also helped me clarify the referent to "amendments" within my bylaws document. I think I am set. Thanks.

Tim, thank you for your reply. I will try to be clearer. 1. Yes, I realize that we must choose between treating what we received as either a revision or as bylaws amendments. I believe the document we received was, in fact, a revision, even though that was not what was requested. Is there a way, given that, to officially highlight what has changed (even though the revision is to been on its own merit, as a new document)? 2. I used the phrase "initial meeting" because our current (and the revision) bylaws require presentation/no action at the first meeting, and action at the second meeting. This is the actual wording: "Proposed changes [to the bylaws] shall be submitted to the Executive Committee not later than one month in advance of any regular meeting of the Senate. Amendments so submitted shall be introduced at one meeting of the Senate and voted on at the following Senate meeting." I think that part of the problem I am having is to determine if "Amendments" restricts action of the main motion/amendments to the bylaws, or if it also includes all primary and secondary amendments to the proposed bylaws changes. To date, we have (at the first meeting) limited our actions to the second meeting (including all primary and secondary amendments). From what you wrote above, there is no "scope of notice" so we can, at the second meeting, make amendments to the revision at the second meeting, and continue to do what we have been doing. Correct? 3 My attached document was just designed to comprehensively illustrate relevant text. I wanted to know if I had left anything out. Again, thank you.

Our organization is in the process of amending bylaws. The committee charged with doing so went past its charge, and created a completely new set of bylaws (a revision). I, as parliamentarian, have the following questions: 1. During the initial meeting when the new bylaws document is introduced, is it open to primary and secondary amendments (to be moved/seconded, but not voted upon until the next meeting)? It seems to me that if advance notice is to be comprehensive, such would need to be the case. I understand that amendments can't go beyond the scope of the new bylaws/revision. The option to consider such amendments seems to be present in the following statement: "When notice of a bylaw amendment is given in open meeting, it cannot be considered at that time, except to be discussed informally and briefly at the discretion of the presiding officer” (p. 596, lines 31-35). 2. Within Section 57, revisions are said to be treated as new, and not compared with the original bylaws. "Notice of such a revision is notice that a new document will be submitted that will be open to amendment as fully as if the society were adopting bylaws for the first time. In other words, in the case of a revision, the assembly is not confined to consideration only of the points of change included in the proposed revision as submitted by the committee that has drafted it. The revision can be perfected by first-degree and second-degree amendments, but as in the case of any other bylaw amendment, the old document is not pending; and therefore, while 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.” (p. 593, lines 16-31). This seems to contradict the following: “A revision of bylaws or a lengthy amendment involving more than one section should be considered seriatim" (page 593, lines 33-35, emphasis added). I created the attached file, which I think is inclusive of relevant text, but if I am missing something, I would appreciate a correction. Thank you very much for your assistance. Relevant Robert’s Rules.docx