David A Foulkes Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:01 PM Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:01 PM At our State Convention in May, a number of proposed bylaw amendments to the State bylaws will be brought before the delegates. The bylaws require that all proposed amendments must be submitted to the Secretary no less than 60 in advance of the convention date. On the form used to submit the proposed amendment for one such amendment, the date noted as "submitted" is less than 60 days.What is the proper procedure to avoid consideration of this amendment? The two I have in mind are a Point of Order and Object to Consideration of the Motion. Are either, or both, of those applicable, and if both, is one preferable? Or is there another method that is more appropriate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:05 PM Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:05 PM You can't object to the consideration of a bylaw amendment since it's never an original main motion.A point of order is fine.But why even place it before the assembly to begin with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:15 PM Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:15 PM At our State Convention in May, a number of proposed bylaw amendments to the State bylaws will be brought before the delegates. The bylaws require that all proposed amendments must be submitted to the Secretary no less than 60 in advance of the convention date. On the form used to submit the proposed amendment for one such amendment, the date noted as "submitted" is less than 60 days.What is the proper procedure to avoid consideration of this amendment? The two I have in mind are a Point of Order and Object to Consideration of the Motion. Are either, or both, of those applicable, and if both, is one preferable? Or is there another method that is more appropriate?I agree that a point of order would be the tool to use, but what is the point? What is the Secretary supposed to do with submitted proposals, and was this (whatever it is) able to be accomplished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:17 PM Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:17 PM But why even place it before the assembly to begin with?Well, it's a long story that gets into questionable actions and behaviors on the part of the board, such as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:21 PM Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:21 PM But why even place it before the assembly to begin with?Since the meeting hasn't happened yet I would imagine that it would appear before the assembly unless the Chair notices it and asks it be pulled from the proposed program or a member brings it to the Chair's attention. With this being a State Convention I believe that the Program and/or Agenda would need to be adopted first and that is where this question would be addressed. Either someone can raise a Point of Order at that time if it is there or if it has already been yanked I am sure that the proponent of the amendment will be inquiring why their amendment is MIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:21 PM Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:21 PM Well, it's a long story that gets into questionable actions and behaviors on the part of the board, such as this.You know we hate long stories. A point of order - yes. OTCQ - no (that applies to any motion to rescind/amend by the way, not just bylaw amendments). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:47 PM Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:47 PM I agree that a point of order would be the tool to use, but what is the point? What is the Secretary supposed to do with submitted proposals, and was this (whatever it is) able to be accomplished?Avoiding quoting the bylaws, amendments are to be submitted to the Secretary who is then to transmit a copy to all chartered affiliates in the state within a certain time frame. Yes, this was able to be accomplished. However, the "deadline" for submission (at least 60 before the convention) had passed when the proposal was submitted.You know we hate long stories. Uh-huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert B Fish Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:47 PM Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:47 PM I suspect this happens more frequently than we'd think. Nearly every organization has "notice" requirements for amendments to the bylaws and special meetings. To save mailing costs, they include the notice in a pre-meeting newsletter. There would be no problem using the newsletter except for the fact that the newsletter mailing date comes at the end of submission of all articles, editing, printing, labeling, and mailing. We all know "the number of days is computed by counting all calendar days (including holidays and weekends), excluding the day of the meeting but including the day of the mailing." [page 90] Bulk mail usually doesn't indicate the date of mailing by postmark and bulk mailing is treated like, well, bulk mailing. The point is that frequently the members have no way to audit whether sufficient notice was given, due to the fact that bulk mail is not postmarked.While the quick answer might be to ask the secretary, he/she might not have the information either. Any thoughts?-Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:50 PM Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:50 PM Any thoughts?It's not so much about notice. The submission form includes the date of submission to the Secretary, and in this case it was after the "60 days previous" requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:56 PM Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 at 01:56 PM See p. 615, l. 11-23, for a similar situation.Point of Order, not Object to the Consideration, for the reasons stated by George. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 28, 2011 at 02:11 PM Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 at 02:11 PM As best I can determine, no harm at all has been suffered as a result of this late submission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert B Fish Posted March 28, 2011 at 02:44 PM Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 at 02:44 PM As best I can determine, no harm at all has been suffered as a result of this late submission.???One harm that is always the result of late notice is that people opposed to the action are limited in their available time to roganize opposition.-Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 28, 2011 at 02:47 PM Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 at 02:47 PM ???One harm that is always the result of late notice is that people opposed to the action are limited in their available time to roganize opposition.-BobBut there has been no delay in sending out this notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted March 28, 2011 at 02:59 PM Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 at 02:59 PM As best I can determine, no harm at all has been suffered as a result of this late submission.I concur, though the presiding officer and ultimately the assembly will have to decide the point of order and the potential appeal, based on more detail than we have here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 28, 2011 at 03:06 PM Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 at 03:06 PM I concur, though the presiding officer and ultimately the assembly will have to decide the point of order and the potential appeal, based on more detail than we have here.Perhaps Mr. Foulkes should think again about raising a point of order concerning this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted March 28, 2011 at 03:39 PM Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 at 03:39 PM Perhaps Mr. Foulkes should think again about raising a point of order concerning this matter.Yes, and I'm certain he is. P. 243, l. 12-16 should be useful to him in his contemplation. However, if this is a point of contention among the members, a ruling on it may go a long way to solidifying harmony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted March 28, 2011 at 05:54 PM Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 at 05:54 PM Yes, and I'm certain he is.Indeed I have, in favor of Mr. Honemann's suggestion.The underlying societal issue is that the Board has been developing a habit of abiding by bylaws and RONR when it is convenient, and otherwise playing lose by the rules. In the manner of "give them an inch and they will take a mile", this bylaw question is an inch. I'll pass it over on my way to taking back some feet, yards, rods, chains and furlongs.Thanks to all for opinions, suggestions, and citations. Oh my. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.