Amendment proposals

[Guest alda7athome]

We are a 501 © 7 non-profit social car club.

Late in its term, the 2010 Board of Directors passed proposed amendments to be presented to general membership.

The proposed amendments could not be presented during the tenure of the 2010 Board of Directors because of logistic problems.

President of the new 2011 Board of Directors wants to disregard the proposed amendments previously approved and reconsider them with the new Board because he doesn't agree with one of them. He is unilaterally deciding not to publish the amendments in the club newsletter, which is required by our Bylaws prior to being voted on by the general membership.

I maintain that the amendments as approved by the Board must be presented to the general membership at the earliest opportunity, and the president or anyone else may argue against it. Should it pass, then the new Board can present an amendment to amend the passed amendment.

His argument is that the new Board has a right to reconsider what the previous Board had approved.

Hope this isn't too confusing.

Any opinions on this?

Thanks,

Al

[Kim Goldsworthy]

We are a 501 © 7 non-profit social car club.

Late in its term, the 2010 Board of Directors passed proposed amendments to be presented to general membership.

The proposed amendments could not be presented during the tenure of the 2010 Board of Directors because of logistic problems.

President of the new 2011 Board of Directors wants to disregard the proposed amendments previously approved and reconsider them with the new Board because he doesn't agree with one of them.

He is unilaterally deciding not to publish the amendments

in the club newsletter,

which is required by our Bylaws

prior to being voted on by the general membership.

I maintain that

the amendments as approved by the Board must be presented to the general membership

at the earliest opportunity,

and the president or anyone else may argue against it.

Should it pass, then the new Board can present an amendment to amend the passed amendment.

His argument is that the new Board has a right to reconsider what the previous Board had approved.

Big picture outline:

• To amend the bylaws requires something (let's call it "X").

• President refuses to obey the bylaw and is hindering the completion of "X". -- That is, you assert that the P has no authority to hinder "X".

Am I summarizing your scenario correctly so far?

Bad news.

To go forward from here, you, or I, or someone needs to know what the rule is, i.e., what "X" is. -- Who has the authority to fulfill X, and who has the authority to delay or hinder or cripple X?

E.g., your president might be empowered to control the newsletter. If such were the case, then your problem isn't a question of Robert's Rules of Order.

E.g., your newsletter editor might be the guilty party, as the newsletter editor might control the content and the scheduling of the newsletter, and thus control the notification. If such were the case, then your problem isn't a question of Robert's Rules of Order.

(I am focusing on the publishing aspect because that is the only thing you've cited so far as being required by your bylaws. We are in the dark for everything else.)

Right now, because you failed to cite the method of amendment, no one knows if your president is in compliance of out of compliance with the method of amendment.

Heck, I don't even know if your newsletter editor is in compliance or out of compliance with your method of amendment.

Without knowing the method of amendment we have a "He Said, She Said" argument:

P says "I can do it."

You say, "No, you can't."

And no one knows what the rule is, and no one knows if the president is empowered to do what he is doing.

Bottom line:

So far, your question is, "What is our method of amendment, and is our president empowered to do what he is doing?"

The answer to that is "I don't know, and, I don't know." -- Both answers lie in your bylaws, where the method of amendment is defined, and where the powers of your president is defined.

Which is a fancy way of saying, "You question isn't a question about Robert's Rules of Order, but a question of compliance with alda7athome's bylaws."

[Josh Martin]

President of the new 2011 Board of Directors wants to disregard the proposed amendments previously approved and reconsider them with the new Board because he doesn't agree with one of them. He is unilaterally deciding not to publish the amendments in the club newsletter, which is required by our Bylaws prior to being voted on by the general membership.

I maintain that the amendments as approved by the Board must be presented to the general membership at the earliest opportunity, and the president or anyone else may argue against it. Should it pass, then the new Board can present an amendment to amend the passed amendment.

His argument is that the new Board has a right to reconsider what the previous Board had approved.

I think you'll need to look to your Bylaws to work out this issue. If your Bylaws require that the amendments must be published after being adopted by the board by a certain date, then that's that. On the other hand, if the board can meet prior to the deadline, I see no reason why the board couldn't change its recommendation. The President is correct that the board has the right to Amend (not Reconsider - the time limit for that has long past) what the board has previously adopted. The question is whether the board has time to do so before the amendments must be submitted to the membership, and you can only answer that question by reading your Bylaws.