Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Bylaws committee'.
Found 4 results
Our organization has about 45 members, an 8 member board of directors consisting of 4 officers plus 4 additional board members. Our bylaws include the statement. “All business shall be conducted in accordance with Roberts’ Rules Newly Revised.” Our board of directors, at its own initiative, is in process of rewriting the organization bylaws. The intent is to replace current bylaws completely. The “committee” doing the rewriting was selected by the board of directors to be “members of board of directors only” – Is the committee member selection in compliance with RONR? (Committee selection appears to be in conflict with Chapter XVIII Page 566 lines 24 – 32. Page 593 line 19 indicates that the “completely rewritten bylaws” should be called a “revision”.) Assuming committee member selection is not in compliance, how can an objection be raised? Assuming an objection can be made, is the objection enough to prevent a “vote to approve” for the revision? Thank you for your help Richard Kaiser
When an individual on a committee that is revising bylaws writes a suggestion in an email to be considered by a specific member and/or the parliamentarian, is it appropriate for that member or the parliamentarian to forward that suggestion to the President of the organization when the President is not on the committee and the committee has not agreed on the final wording? Is it appropriate on any committee for information to be shared outside of the committee prior to the committee giving its final report?
The Bylaws Committee has met several times, and the plan was that the revised bylaws be presented for a vote at the next annual meeting. However, the committee chair does not agree with a new provision in the bylaws and has stopped calling any meetings of the committee. Can two of the members call a meeting?
Two related questions... 1) is the a " proper" format outlined in which how a amendment proposal should be written before it is proposed for consideration? Have heard that it should/can be: Currently says Change requested (I.e amend by inserting the word "baby" after the word "big") As amended would read Who submitted Rationale 2) the bylaws call for a bylaws committee, as quoted below... The current process used is that the proposals go to the clubs and members of board at the same time but before the opening of the convention, the board reviews each proposal and votes on whether or not to recommend the proposal to the membership so by the time the meeting actually starts the attendees receive another copy of the proposed amendments with a note as to whether the board does or does not recommend each proposal. Then after convention starts, the bylaws committee reviews all proposals again and they vote on whether or not to recommend each one and then the attendees receive another copy of the amendments that now have a note that says whether or not the bylaws committee recommends to adoption of the amendment. The process of the board reviewing etc is not written in any bylaw or policy that is in place. Is this process a legitimate way of reviewing the amendment? "There shall be a Bylaws Committee composed of a Chair and two (2) members of the Board of Directors, appointed by the President, plus representatives from each Region in proportion to the number of the region's clubs registered at Convention. This committee shall meet during Convention. It shall be the duty of this committee to review all proposed amendments to these Bylaws after presentation to Convention, and provide recommendations on them to the Convention."