gregory Posted October 4, 2011 at 03:25 PM Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 at 03:25 PM We have 125 bylaw amendments pending and to be voted on at ournext membership meetings.We have no parliamentarian present at our meetings. So what wouldyou Parliamentarians suggest to allow and ensure that all membersare ensured equal rights in the voting process on all 125 bylaw amendments.Some of the bylaw amendments request a secret ballot vote, some don't.The call to the meeting is one hour earlier than normal.All suggesstions considered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted October 4, 2011 at 03:40 PM Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 at 03:40 PM 125 amendments??? Wow, that is a lot of amendments. Assuming that the notice hasn't been sent out yet I would suggest that a revision of the bylaws be offered (instead of individual amendments being considered a substitution of the entire document-with any changes desired- would be open to amendment). See RONR/10 pp. 573-580 regarding the amendment of bylaws and pp. 574-575 specifically regarding isolated changes vs a general revision. If you have the 11th Edition (which came out about a week and a half ago) stay tuned for the corresponding pages in RONR/11 (my copy is supposed to arrive sometime today). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 4, 2011 at 03:43 PM Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 at 03:43 PM If you have the 11th Edition (which came out about a week and a half ago) stay tuned for the corresponding pages in RONR/11 (my copy is supposed to arrive sometime today).p. 592-599. So what would you Parliamentarians suggest to allow and ensure that all membersare ensured equal rights in the voting process on all 125 bylaw amendments.I'd lay in a supply of canned goods and bottled water. And don't forget the can opener. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted October 4, 2011 at 03:49 PM Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 at 03:49 PM p. 592-599. You da man!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 4, 2011 at 03:50 PM Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 at 03:50 PM You da man!! And (hopefully) sometime today, you will be too!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted October 4, 2011 at 07:20 PM Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 at 07:20 PM I'd group them together. Just from the sound of it there would likely be similar amendments. For example, if you want to change the By-law for the number of directors (say from 5 to 7), other By-laws might need to be amended to either mention "seven directors" (or better yet to "the directors" or "the Board"). If possible, I would try that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GcT Posted October 5, 2011 at 04:05 PM Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 at 04:05 PM gregory, I would advice having a few patient, experienced, and respected members read RONR - In Brief a few times, and be prepared to help the chairman when he asks, even in "break-out groups" if necessary. And, critically, have the chairman be well-prepared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted October 5, 2011 at 04:25 PM Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 at 04:25 PM And a (somewhat self-serving) suggestion (but not for me, I live on the East coast):If you anticipate that you mighthave continuing parliamentarydifficulties or problems youmight want to get in touch witha real live professionalparliamentarian in your area(not virtual ones like us)for consultations.Contact either (or both) the ...National Association of Parliamentarians213 South Main St.Independence, MO 64050-3850Phone: 888-627-2929Fax: 816-833-3893; e-mail: hq@NAP2.org <<www.parliamentarians.org>>orAmerican Institute of Parliamentarians550M Ritchie Highway #271Severna Park, MD 21146Phone: 888-664-0428Fax: 410-544-4640e-mail: aip@aipparl.org<<www.aipparl.org>>for a reference or information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregory Posted October 5, 2011 at 07:09 PM Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 at 07:09 PM JD,It might amuse you to know that one of the 125 bylaw amendments pending is to requirea Professional Registered Parliamentarian assist the President as Chair in all membershipmeetings. The reason I submitted this Bylaw Amendment is because of this forum and thefeed back I've gotten here from you and people like you. This forum WORKSHere it is:Bylaw amendment 47. Greg Hofer made a motion to amend Article Vto add a new section, "Local 556 will employ a non member IndependentProfessional Parliamentarian not affiliated with Local XXX to be availableat Membership Meetings to assist the Chair and the Membership as allowed per our Parliamentary Authority." XXX seconded the motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted October 5, 2011 at 07:10 PM Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 at 07:10 PM Also, I think the group should plan ahead, in case there just isn't time to finish adequate consideration of those 125 changes -- i.e. be prepared to fix a time (and place) to which to adjourn the meeting, should it come to that. Depending on what is being amended, and how the members deal with the various proposed amendments, it may not be possible to wrap it up in the planned time (even if that time is an hour longer than usual). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 5, 2011 at 09:26 PM Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 at 09:26 PM It might amuse you to know that one of the 125 bylaw amendments pending is to require a Professional Registered Parliamentarian assist the President as Chair in all membershipmeetings.And yet the word "Registered" does not appear in the proposed amendment (47). And did you intend to rule out Certified (AIP) Parliamentarians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregory Posted October 6, 2011 at 02:58 AM Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 at 02:58 AM Edgar, a complete oversight on my part. I'm still learning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 6, 2011 at 01:15 PM Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 at 01:15 PM Edgar, a complete oversight on my part. I'm still learning.Are you sure? I think "Professional Parliamentarian" is best left the way it is (but drop the caps). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted October 6, 2011 at 01:26 PM Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 at 01:26 PM Are you sure? I think "Professional Parliamentarian" is best left the way it is.I agreed with Dan H., for a number of reasons. Perhaps "learned in parliamentary procedure" might even be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 6, 2011 at 01:54 PM Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 at 01:54 PM I agreed with Dan H., for a number of reasons. Perhaps "learned in parliamentary procedure" might even be better.And I'm sure that you will also agree that the important thing for gregory to do in drafting any bylaw provision on this subject is to carefully take into consideration what RONR says (RONR, 11th ed., pp. 465-67) about the appointment and duties of a parliamentarian.By the way, I suppose that, by definition, a parliamentarian is supposed to be someone who is learned in parliamentary procedure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted October 6, 2011 at 03:47 PM Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 at 03:47 PM And I'm sure that you will also agree that the important thing for gregory to do in drafting any bylaw provision on this subject is to carefully take into consideration what RONR says (RONR, 11th ed., pp. 465-67) about the appointment and duties of a parliamentarian.He should, but the bylaw will supersede that, if adopted.By the way, I suppose that, by definition, a parliamentarian is supposed to be someone who is learned in parliamentary procedure. I would say that this definition does not exist in reality (though it would be nice if it did). All that said, while I certainly think that a parliamentarian may be useful to an assembly, I would think it unwise to mandate the use of a parliamentarian, and the requirement a particular credential within that mandate. That stand does fatten my wallet any, but I believe it is the wiser stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted October 6, 2011 at 04:22 PM Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 at 04:22 PM However, if included in the bylaws, a requirement for the presence of a professional parliamentarian would certainly be a "suspendable rule of order" if it was thought unnecessary to have one there for a particular (presumed to be) harmonious meeting.What could be more conducive "to the orderly transaction of business in meetings" than having a pro parliamentarian at the meeting -- RONR p.[15 / 15]* ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted October 6, 2011 at 05:55 PM Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 at 05:55 PM We have 125 bylaw amendments pending and to be voted on at ournext membership meetings.We have no parliamentarian present at our meetings. So what wouldyou Parliamentarians suggest to allow and ensure that all membersare ensured equal rights in the voting process on all 125 bylaw amendments.Some of the bylaw amendments request a secret ballot vote, some don't.The call to the meeting is one hour earlier than normal.All suggesstions considered?Much of the heavy lifting can be done in committees, which, because of their smaller sizes, are better able to do much of the work in less time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.