Amending a motion to amend bylaws

[Guest Debbie]

Hello! Thank you in advance for your help with my question.

Our group has a method for amending its bylaws: written notice of a proposed amendment to the bylaws given 2 weeks prior to the business meeting, regular or special called. We were to vote on 4 changes to the bylaws: 3 additions/changes and one deletion of wording. These were given out to the membership in written form ahead of time as prescribed.

As the meeting was being called to order the moderator made these 2 statements:

1. No more than 2 questions would be brought by any one member with regards to the motion

2. Because it was an amendment to the bylaws, written ahead of time and handed out, it could not be amended and would be considered in its totality with only an up or down vote.

The moderator reiterated that these rules were in accordance to Robert's Rules of Order.

Not being as knowledgeable about this as others, I asked politely if this was really correct and I was told that he checked it and was correct. Not wanting to publicly embarras him, I chose to not question it any further but I am really uneasy about this issue. I was prepared to debate and amend the motion but found myself unable to do much with these restrictions. The amendment after a limited amount of debate was voted upon and passed.

Could I please find out if this process was done correctly and if not what should happen to that amendment?

Thank you for your assistance.

[paulmcclintock]

Regarding amending a pending motion to amend the bylaws that requires previous notice, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) does allow such amendments so long as they are within the "scope" of the status quo and the proposed amendment. The classic example is, suppose dues are currently $50 per bylaws, and a proposed amendment with notice would strike out $50 and insert $70. It would be within scope and allowed to amend by striking out $70 from the pending amendment and inserting $60 (or any other amount between $50 and $70), but not an amount lower than $50 or greater than $70. This is a protection for absent members who were okay with the current $50 and the proposed $70 per the notice, and thus presumably with any number in between, but who may have shown up to vote were it possible to amend it to $100 on the floor.

Regarding limiting debate, that decision belongs to the assembly, not the chair to dictate. The normal RONR rules for debate basically allows each member to speak twice in debate on a motion for at most ten minutes each time. To alter those rules for a given motion takes a two-thirds vote to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate.

But there is no limit on the number of questions a member may ask for information they need in order to know how to vote, using the Point of Information motion to ask such questions.

Of course your bylaws may supersede RONR in any of these points.

[Guest Debbie]

Regarding amending a pending motion to amend the bylaws that requires previous notice, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) does allow such amendments so long as they are within the "scope" of the status quo and the proposed amendment. The classic example is, suppose dues are currently $50 per bylaws, and a proposed amendment with notice would strike out $50 and insert $70. It would be within scope and allowed to amend by striking out $70 from the pending amendment and inserting $60 (or any other amount between $50 and $70), but not an amount lower than $50 or greater than $70. This is a protection for absent members who were okay with the current $50 and the proposed $70 per the notice, and thus presumably with any number in between, but who may have shown up to vote were it possible to amend it to $100 on the floor.

Regarding limiting debate, that decision belongs to the assembly, not the chair to dictate. The normal RONR rules for debate basically allows each member to speak twice in debate on a motion for at most ten minutes each time. To alter those rules for a given motion takes a two-thirds vote to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate.

But there is no limit on the number of questions a member may ask for information they need in order to know how to vote, using the Point of Information motion to ask such questions.

Of course your bylaws may supersede RONR in any of these points.

Thank you.

With regard to amending the motion to amend the bylaws, could I request the specific area in the ROR book where this is discussed?

With regard to limiting debate, if no one else rises, can a member continue speaking to the motion more than twice, providing there are no objections?

And my last question, what happens to the motion if it was passed under these incorrect parliamentary procedures? Is it considered null and void?

Thanks again for any and all assistance in this matter. It will be brought up in a smaller committee meeting tonight (Monday the 7th) and I wanted to be prepared to show the moderator his errors if possible.

~Debbie

[Weldon Merritt]

Could I please find out if this process was done correctly and if not what should happen to that amendment?

You already know from Mr. McClintock's response that it was not done correctly. But to answer the other part or your question, the amendment should be impelmented as adopted. At the time the amendment was under consideration, you could have raised a Point of Order, and if your were ruled against, you and one other member (as the seconder) could have appealed the ruling and let the assembly decide. But it is too late for that now. What you can do at this point is follow the procedures in your byalws for amending them, and propose another amendment to try to get the wording you want. Then at the meeting when your amendmnent is being considered, don't let your wish to not "publically embarras" someone keep you from asserting your rights.

[paulmcclintock]

With regard to amending the motion to amend the bylaws, could I request the specific area in the ROR book where this is discussed?

Page 574: 2) Permissible primary and secondary amendment of the motion to amend the bylaws is usually limited by the extent of change for which notice was given, as explained below [p. 576 ff].

With regard to limiting debate, if no one else rises, can a member continue speaking to the motion more than twice, providing there are no objections?

In formal settings, a member stands when speaking in debate, and sits when done which should be after at most ten minutes. This yields the floor, and the chair asks if there is further debate. If no one else seeks the floor, the member can rise to speak a second time in debate, or if he has spoken twice already he may ask to suspend the rules so he can speak again. If speaking at any time and ten minutes is reached and the speaker feels no one would object to his continuing, he should pause to ask if he can continue, and the chair should ask if there is any objection, and if none, the member can continue.

(In meetings of small boards and committees (about 12 or fewer in attendance), the two speeches in debate on a motion per day per member does not apply.)

And my last question, what happens to the motion if it was passed under these incorrect parliamentary procedures? Is it considered null and void?

It is not null and void. When the chair said these things (limited debate, no amendments), a point of order would have had to been made at that time. Or, a member could have sought to make an amendment, had it ruled out of order, and moved to appeal the ruling of the chair ("appeal" needs to be seconded, and a majority would need to vote against sustaining the decision of the chair). A point of order must be made at the time of the incorrect ruling or rule violation, or it is too late, except for 5 categories of continuing breaches, in which case the point of order can be raised at any time the breach continues. I don't see your situation as a continuing breach. See RONR p. 244.

[Gary Novosielski]

Thank you.

With regard to amending the motion to amend the bylaws, could I request the specific area in the ROR book where this is discussed?

That would be on p. 576-577 of RONR 10th edition (not ROR). Make sure you're using the Right Book.

With regard to limiting debate, if no one else rises, can a member continue speaking to the motion more than twice, providing there are no objections?

Yes, if unanimous consent was properly requested. Strictly speaking, the right way to do this is to move to Extend the Limits of Debate, which requires second, is undebatable, is amendable, and requires a 2/3 vote.

And my last question, what happens to the motion if it was passed under these incorrect parliamentary procedures? Is it considered null and void?

Thanks again for any and all assistance in this matter. It will be brought up in a smaller committee meeting tonight (Monday the 7th) and I wanted to be prepared to show the moderator his errors if possible.

Motions are only considered null and void under some fairly strict conditions, such as those on p. 244 l. 10 ff. It is very unwise to depend upon being able to have a motion declared null and void after the fact. Instead, points of order should be raised immediately at the time that the breach of the rules occurs.

Most common errors by the chair do not create continuing breaches. We have a saying: The rules do not enforce themselves. If the moderator does not properly enforce the rules, it is up to one of the members to raise a Point of Order. It is then up to the moderator to rule on the Point of Order giving reasons for his ruling. If he rules incorrectly, then any two members (mover/seconder) can Appeal (§24) from the decision of the chair. If he claims to be relying on "Robert's Rules", he should be prepared to cite the specific rule. A majority is required to overrule the chair. That section begins on page 247, and is something you ought to read before Monday night.

Good luck.

[Josh Martin]

Not wanting to publicly embarras him, I chose to not question it any further but I am really uneasy about this issue.

If the chair is embarrassed by a member raising a Point of Order, your assembly needs a new chair. A good chair knows how to handle a Point of Order and an Appeal and does not take offense to either motion.

[Guest Debbie]

If the chair is embarrassed by a member raising a Point of Order, your assembly needs a new chair. A good chair knows how to handle a Point of Order and an Appeal and does not take offense to either motion.

Thank you for these replies. It is unfortunate, at times, to question a leader's ability to lead in these matters, but I agree that the only way to guarantee everyone's rights are protected, the "uncomfortable" position of one questioning moderator's ruling needs to be set aside in favor of what is best for all the assembly. Thanks again.

[Josh Martin]

It is unfortunate, at times, to question a leader's ability to lead in these matters, but I agree that the only way to guarantee everyone's rights are protected, the "uncomfortable" position of one questioning moderator's ruling needs to be set aside in favor of what is best for all the assembly.

If the presiding officer is made "uncomfortable" by an Appeal from his ruling or interprets it as questioning his ability to preside, he misunderstands the motion's purpose. See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 250, lines 18-26.