Guest Jeanie Marvin Posted July 14, 2011 at 12:35 AM Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 at 12:35 AM Our vintage car club has in our bylaws the specification that cars must be from the year 1962 or older. The bylaws may only be changed only after publicising the change for 2 months, followed by a 2/3 majority vote by members at attendance at the designated meeting. In a recent meeting, we proposed changing the bylaws to include newer cars; we gave 3 options. 5 years, 10 years, and "no change". Many more than 2/3 voted for either 5 or 10 years. Now the dilemma is, can we use a simple majority to choose between the 5 year and 10 year options? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 14, 2011 at 12:56 AM Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 at 12:56 AM Our vintage car club has in our bylaws the specification that cars must be from the year 1962 or older. The bylaws may only be changed only after publicising the change for 2 months, followed by a 2/3 majority vote by members at attendance at the designated meeting. In a recent meeting, we proposed changing the bylaws to include newer cars; we gave 3 options. 5 years, 10 years, and "no change". Many more than 2/3 voted for either 5 or 10 years. Now the dilemma is, can we use a simple majority to choose between the 5 year and 10 year options?The specific year should be decided first, by a majority vote, then the bylaw change would be decided by the vote required for amending the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 14, 2011 at 12:59 AM Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 at 12:59 AM Our vintage car club has in our bylaws the specification that cars must be from the year 1962 or older. The bylaws may only be changed only after publicising the change for 2 months, followed by a 2/3 majority vote by members at attendance at the designated meeting. In a recent meeting, we proposed changing the bylaws to include newer cars; we gave 3 options. 5 years, 10 years, and "no change". Many more than 2/3 voted for either 5 or 10 years. Now the dilemma is, can we use a simple majority to choose between the 5 year and 10 year options?No. The "three option" proposal was improper and null and void, as it is a violation of the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one question may be pending at a time. You'll have to do it again the right way - have someone make a motion to amend the Bylaws with the "five year" or "ten year" option, and then members may attempt to Amend the motion if they wish (majority vote). The main motion to amend the Bylaws is then voted on, which requires a 2/3 vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted July 14, 2011 at 01:29 AM Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 at 01:29 AM No. The "three option" proposal was improper and null and void, as it is a violation of the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one question may be pending at a time. would it be proper to use filling a blank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 14, 2011 at 01:51 AM Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 at 01:51 AM would it be proper to use filling a blank?Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted July 14, 2011 at 04:40 AM Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 at 04:40 AM Yes.Adroit use of one-word answer. And shorter than the one previously remarked. Neat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.