Amending Amendments to Bylaws

[Guest Camellia Rose]

My organization will vote on recommended amendments to our Bylaws in May. The amendments will be distributed next week in April, 30 days before the vote (as required in our current Bylaws). With advance notice, only a 2/3rds vote is required to adopt an amendment. Without notice, a 9/10th vote is needed. I think the amendments should be voted either up or down AS PRESENTED pursuant to the required advance notice WITHOUT MEMBERS TRYING TO AMEND the amendments. I'm reasoning that an amendment to an amendment is a new motion without notice. Although getting a 9/10th vote from members is virtually impossible, quite frankly, I DO NOT wish to go through the complicated procedure of processing an "amendment to an amendment". What does Roberts Rules say about this? Please site RONR (10th ed.) Thanks in advance. BTW, in spite of the frequent jokes, the information/advice shared concerning parliamentary procedures is valuable and much respected and appreciated by posters truly trying to understand and learn the correct way to run productive meetings. Again, many thanks for sharing your wisdom!

[George Mervosh]

See RONR, p. 576ff "Amending a Proposed Amendment to the Bylaws" It can be done....with limitations in most cases.

[Chris Harrison]

As long as the amendment falls within the scope of notice the organization would not have to go for the 9/10 vote (RONR pp. 576-577). While I can sympathize with you wanting to keep things simple you cannot deprive a member of their right to perfect the amendment however they see fit (even if it does complicate things for you) unless you can get 2/3 of the members to agree with you by ordering the Previous Question (RONR pp. 189-201).

[Dan Honemann]

See RONR, p. 576ff "Amending a Proposed Amendment to the Bylaws" It can be done....with limitations in most cases.

If this organization's bylaws permit adoption of bylaw amendments by a 9/10ths vote without previous notice (which seems to be the case), then it would appear that even motions to amend beyond the scope of the notice given will be in order.

[Tim Wynn]

My organization will vote on recommended amendments to our Bylaws in May. The amendments will be distributed next week in April, 30 days before the vote (as required in our current Bylaws). With advance notice, only a 2/3rds vote is required to adopt an amendment. Without notice, a 9/10th vote is needed.

A motion to amend a bylaw is specific form of the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. It is debatable and amendable. See RONR(10th ed.), Section 35.

I think the amendments should be voted either up or down AS PRESENTED pursuant to the required advance notice WITHOUT MEMBERS TRYING TO AMEND the amendments.

That's your individual preference. Members still have the right to make motions to amend, and the assembly has the right to amend, even if you don't like it.

I'm reasoning that an amendment to an amendment is a new motion without notice.

That's not true. It's the same motion, but whether or not the notice still applies depends on if the amended motion stays within the scope of the notice. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 576-577.

Although getting a 9/10th vote from members is virtually impossible, quite frankly, I DO NOT wish to go through the complicated procedure of processing an "amendment to an amendment".

That's probably the worst reason to not take action. Once again, the will of the assembly beats out your personal preference.

BTW, in spite of the frequent jokes, the information/advice shared concerning parliamentary procedures is valuable and much respected and appreciated by posters truly trying to understand and learn the correct way to run productive meetings. Again, many thanks for sharing your wisdom!

I'm glad you can get past the humor.

[George Mervosh]

See RONR, p. 576ff "Amending a Proposed Amendment to the Bylaws" It can be done....with limitations in most cases.

If this organization's bylaws permit adoption of bylaw amendments by a 9/10ths vote without previous notice (which seems to be the case), then it would appear that even motions to amend beyond the scope of the notice given will be in order.

Certainly, but I was trying to keep it strictly to RONR (since she asked for citations) and amendments which will require only a majority vote to adopt, rather than a 9/10ths vote.

[tctheatc]

My organization will vote on recommended amendments to our Bylaws in May. The amendments will be distributed next week in April, 30 days before the vote (as required in our current Bylaws). With advance notice, only a 2/3rds vote is required to adopt an amendment. Without notice, a 9/10th vote is needed. I think the amendments should be voted either up or down AS PRESENTED pursuant to the required advance notice WITHOUT MEMBERS TRYING TO AMEND the amendments. I'm reasoning that an amendment to an amendment is a new motion without notice. Although getting a 9/10th vote from members is virtually impossible, quite frankly, I DO NOT wish to go through the complicated procedure of processing an "amendment to an amendment". What does Roberts Rules say about this? Please site RONR (10th ed.) Thanks in advance. BTW, in spite of the frequent jokes, the information/advice shared concerning parliamentary procedures is valuable and much respected and appreciated by posters truly trying to understand and learn the correct way to run productive meetings. Again, many thanks for sharing your wisdom!

And suppose there is a motion to amend the bylaws that is poorly worded? Would you not rather have it be amended and voted on in its improved form, rather than vote it down and have to start over with a new proposal at a new meeting? (which seems more work than the procedure of processing an amendment to an amendment)

[George Mervosh]

And suppose there is a motion to amend the bylaws that is poorly worded? Would you not rather have it be amended and voted on in its improved form, rather than vote it down and have to start over with a new proposal at a new meeting? (which seems more work than the procedure of processing an amendment to an amendment)

In my experience the proposed amendments from the floor are often less thought out than the original wording.......but no matter, Ms. Rose knows the proposed amendments are amendable (by either a majority vote or 9/10ths vote), so it's all good.

[Dan Honemann]

In my experience the proposed amendments from the floor are often less thought out than the original wording.......but no matter, Ms. Rose knows the proposed amendment are amendable (by either a majority vote or 9/10ths vote), so it's all good.

Well, when a proposed amendment to the bylaws is amendable, it is amendable by a majority vote.

[Tim Wynn]

In my experience the proposed amendments from the floor are often less thought out than the original wording.......but no matter, Ms. Rose knows the proposed amendments are amendable (by either a majority vote or 9/10ths vote), so it's all good.

Amendment requires a majority.

[Tim Wynn]

Even if it exceeds the scope of the notice in Ms. Rose's case?

If notice is REQUIRED, amendment beyond the scope is out of order... it never requires a higher vote.

Notice doesn't appear to be a requirement in this case.

[George Mervosh]

Well, when a proposed amendment to the bylaws is amendable, it is amendable by a majority vote.

Yes, of course.....semi-senior moment

[Tim Wynn]

Yes, of course.....semi-senior moment

Semi?

[Tim Wynn]

I move that all responses associated with our good friend's moment be deleted.

(unanimous vote required, of course)

[Dan Honemann]

Next thing you know, Camellia Rose will come back and tell us that the vote requirement for amending the bylaws without notice is the vote of 9/10ths of the entire membership, and then we can start all over again.

[Tim Wynn]

Next thing you know, Camellia Rose will come back and tell us that the vote requirement for amending the bylaws without notice is the vote of 9/10ths of the entire membership, and then we can start all over again.

[tctheatc]

In my experience the proposed amendments from the floor are often less thought out than the original wording.......

Yes. Good point.

[Gary Novosielski]

My organization will vote on recommended amendments to our Bylaws in May. The amendments will be distributed next week in April, 30 days before the vote (as required in our current Bylaws). With advance notice, only a 2/3rds vote is required to adopt an amendment. Without notice, a 9/10th vote is needed. I think the amendments should be voted either up or down AS PRESENTED pursuant to the required advance notice WITHOUT MEMBERS TRYING TO AMEND the amendments. I'm reasoning that an amendment to an amendment is a new motion without notice. Although getting a 9/10th vote from members is virtually impossible, quite frankly, I DO NOT wish to go through the complicated procedure of processing an "amendment to an amendment". What does Roberts Rules say about this? Please site RONR (10th ed.) Thanks in advance. BTW, in spite of the frequent jokes, the information/advice shared concerning parliamentary procedures is valuable and much respected and appreciated by posters truly trying to understand and learn the correct way to run productive meetings. Again, many thanks for sharing your wisdom!

This would not be an "amendment to an amendment" situation. Although it's called an Amendment to the bylaws, this is actually in all respects a Main Motion to change the language of the bylaws, and should be treated according to the rules for main motions. It is debatable and amendable, and as long as the proposed changes stay within the scope of the notice, it won't trigger your 9/10ths requirement. Anyone who moves to amend the language is only proposing a first-level ordinary amendment, just as to any main motion. Second level amendments (true amendments-to-the-amendment) are also in order.

These changes only require a majority vote to be agreed to while the motion is being considered. After the motion is in final shape, a vote using your specified 2/3 threshold is taken to see if the motion will be adopted. The Bylaws are either changed in accordance with the pending motion (as perfected) or, if it fails, they are left alone.

Members have the right to amend such a motion, even if you think it should only be voted up or down.