Guest Angie Posted February 7, 2011 at 04:53 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 04:53 PM Our organization appointed a bylaws revision committee. One of our members asked the committee chair for permission to give input on the new bylaws, and was told by the chair to wait until the committee had finished its work.When the committee finished, the proposed new bylaws were mailed out just in time to satisfy our 30 day notice period. The member had no opportunity to make comments before the mailing.My question is: How can this member have input on the proposed bylaws? Can she just bring up her additional changes at the meeting where the bylaws will be discussed and voted on, or does she have to give 30 day notice to the entire group for her additional changes to be considered?Some of her changes will not be welcome by at least some on the board, and she has no access to the entire membership list.Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 7, 2011 at 05:01 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 05:01 PM When the proposed revision is pending, any member may debate and offer amendments on each article and section as they become pending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted February 7, 2011 at 05:01 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 05:01 PM Can she just bring up her additional changes at the meeting where the bylaws will be discussed and voted on, or does she have to give 30 day notice to the entire group for her additional changes to be considered?If notice of a revision was given, everything in the bylaws is subject to amendment without additional notice. If notice of a revision was not given, any amendments to the proposed amendments must fall within the scope of the notice.Note that proposed changes may be extensive without constituting notice of a revision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 7, 2011 at 05:03 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 05:03 PM At the meeting where the revised (not yet in force) bylaws are up for adoption, your unhappy friend can propose detailed amendment(s) to the text. Majority adopts (or defeats) them. See RONR, p. 575. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 7, 2011 at 05:04 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 05:04 PM If notice of a revision was given, everything in the bylaws is subject to amendment without additional notice. If notice of a revision was not given, any amendments to the proposed amendments must fall within the scope of the notice.Note that proposed changes may be extensive without constituting notice of a revision.But if you say it was a revision, Angie, we'll believe you and answer the question accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Angie Posted February 7, 2011 at 05:17 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 05:17 PM Thank you all so much. The notice was extensive, including an Excel spreadsheet of all the changes and copies of both the before and after bylaws.The first meeting actually happened yesterday, but the bylaws committee chair was not present. Because he wasn't present, the member moved to postpone the discussion and the vote over the bylaws to the next meeting. The president ruled the motion out of order, saying that only the board could make motions (which is not in our bylaws or in Roberts Rules from what I understand). Fortunately, one of the board members made the motion and it passed. It could have gotten very ugly, and I do expect things to get ugly at our next meeting. Our bylaws do call for a parliamentarian; but when we had one, the president ignored him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GcT Posted February 7, 2011 at 06:50 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 06:50 PM Step back a moment please, George. Angie, Mr Mervosh and Mr Mountcastle are using the word “revision” in its technical, parliamentary sense. I get the impression that you aren’t familiar with its technical meaning. Forgive me, but are you? We have to start with that.A few thoughts...1. What group met yesterday – the bylaws committee, the board, or the membership? RSVP: it matters greatly.-- 1(a). If this was a board meeting, then the president was absolutely right: nobody but a board member can make a motion at a board meeting (with quibble). Similarly, at meetings of the committee, only members of that committee may make motions. And at meetings of the (general) membership of the organization, all members of the organization have membership rights, including the right to make motions.2. So … I don’t see why the absence of the committee chair should have made the membership postpone considering the bylaws question, unless the members agree that the committee chair’s knowledge of the matter is indispensable.3. Again: If this was a membership meeting -- which would make sense, because presumably it is the membership that deals with amending the bylaws – then every member can make motions. The notion, then, that only board members can make motions at a membership meeting is absurd and undemocratic.4. Robert’s Rules points out that the principal job of a parliamentarian is to assist the presiding officer, so the presiding officer should be free to choose a parliamentarian in whom he has confidence. If your rules differ (not usually a good idea) – and they apparently do, since it’s in the bylaws – you must follow them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Angie Posted February 7, 2011 at 07:40 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 07:40 PM It was the general membership that met yesterday. I agree that it is a travesty that the president claimed that only the board can make motions at the membership meeting, but that's the kind of person we are dealing with. None of us knew enough to counter her, but at least we got the vote postponed to the next meeting. The president wants to control everything that happens. I think the reason for the request to postpone was to have someone else besides the president chairing that part of the meeting, but I don't know for sure. The bylaws chair did say in his notice letter: "I will address all submitted comments and concerns, anonymously, at our next general meeting, prior to the call for a vote." The president did not appear to be prepared to deal with any comments or concerns.The previous parliamentarian WAS appointed by the president, but she still ignored him. You are absolutely correct that I don't know the difference between an amendment and a revision for purposes of notice. I have been reading through these forums, and it appears that maybe the notice requirement was not met for the member who wants to make additional changes to the bylaws.Here are the facts:* The notice letter from the bylaws chair said: -"This letter is your "Notice of Proposed Amendment to the xxx by-laws." In no place, did the bylaws committee chair use the term "revision." -The primary reason for this amendment is to address xxx * The changes went far beyond just xxx* Unfortunately, the key change that the member wants to make is a change in the qualifications to hold office. Currently, the only qualification to hold office is to be a member in good standing and have attended a certain percentage of meetings, and the bylaws committee did not propose any changes to those qualifications. * Because the member's proposed bylaws change is a direct attack on the president, I expect a very contentious meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted February 7, 2011 at 07:45 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 07:45 PM I expect a very contentious meeting. All the more reason to get educated, and fast! Start reading. You can read RONRin Brief in a day, easily. At that point you might be more knowledgeable than your president. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Angie Posted February 7, 2011 at 08:45 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 08:45 PM So, if notice needs to be given for the member's bylaws amendments, how does one force the president to do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 7, 2011 at 09:17 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 09:17 PM Our bylaws do call for a parliamentarian; but when we had one, the president ignored him.Yes, but did she PAY him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Angie Posted February 7, 2011 at 10:07 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 10:07 PM Yes, but did she PAY him?Nope, he was a volunteer. Our group doesn't have much money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 7, 2011 at 10:11 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 10:11 PM There appears to be much wrong with your leadership, as has been noted in previous replies. Your president appears to be out of control, not to mention either ignorant of Robert's Rules or flagrantly disregarding them, either way it's not good. You don't say when the next meeting is scheduled, but you've got your work cut out. Get the In Brief version and read it as many times as you can before then, and come back and post questions.FYI - the Board is not at a general membership meeting. If the members of the Board are members of the organization, they are present only as general members. There is no Board authority at the meeting, because the Board only exists as that entity at Board meetings. Even if the President of the organization is also the President of the Board, she is not presiding over the meeting as the Board president. She's as much a general member as all the others, and in fact less so due to her position. By that I mean, the presiding officer does not make motions, engage in debate, or vote (with one or two exceptions) unless she relinquishes the chair to another.Your general membership is (or should be, barring any extreme rules in place) the final authority over what happens. And barring any restrictions (typically as a result of disciplinary action) on members' rights to make motions, debate, or vote, everyone gets to play. As for the parliamentarian, nothing in RONR says the chair MUST abide by his advice. This is not to say the chair can break the rules, especially when the parliamentarian attempts to advise her on correct procedure. But the parliamentarian's position is that of an adviser only, and does not make rulings. If his advise is ignored by the chair often enough, he may not be around in that position very long.Take back your organization. Read In Brief, and ask more questions. Then spread what you have learned with other members who recognize they are are being badly led. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 7, 2011 at 10:52 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 at 10:52 PM * Because the member's proposed bylaws change is a direct attack on the president, I expect a very contentious meeting.I recommend you take a look at Official Interpretation 2006-2, as it seems to me the President will be unable to preside impartially on this motion and is unlikely to step aside on his own. This can have the added advantage of selecting a chair who knows what he's doing.So, if notice needs to be given for the member's bylaws amendments, how does one force the president to do it?So far as RONR is concerned, sending notice is the Secretary's job. The President has nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.