Tim Wynn Posted December 12, 2011 at 01:08 AM Report Share Posted December 12, 2011 at 01:08 AM When discussing Conforming Amendments, RONR specifically mentions the subsidiary motion to amend, on p. 274, ll. 1-2.However, it seems to me that the basic principal underlying the rules relating to conforming amendments would apply equally to the motion to ASPA. Meaning...A motion “to amend the bylaws by striking out ‘Ways and Means Committee’ wherever it appears and inserting ‘Finance Committee’ in lieu thereof,” would be both necessary and in order, if the desire is to change the name of this committee.Furthermore, in such cases (where all of the individual amendments must be made, if any one of them is made, in order to leave a coherent document or modified motion), multiple related motions to amend something previously adopted are offered in a single motion, which may not be divided into the individual cases of amendment.Does anyone have a problem with this thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 12, 2011 at 01:53 AM Report Share Posted December 12, 2011 at 01:53 AM Not I, said the cat to the little red hen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 14, 2011 at 01:52 AM Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 at 01:52 AM When discussing Conforming Amendments, RONR specifically mentions the subsidiary motion to amend, on p. 274, ll. 1-2.However, it seems to me that the basic principal underlying the rules relating to conforming amendments would apply equally to the motion to ASPA. Meaning...A motion “to amend the bylaws by striking out ‘Ways and Means Committee’ wherever it appears and inserting ‘Finance Committee’ in lieu thereof,” would be both necessary and in order, if the desire is to change the name of this committee.Furthermore, in such cases (where all of the individual amendments must be made, if any one of them is made, in order to leave a coherent document or modified motion), multiple related motions to amend something previously adopted are offered in a single motion, which may not be divided into the individual cases of amendment.Does anyone have a problem with this thinking?I have no problem with this thinking. Either the language on conforming amendments or the thinking you have described here seem to be particular applications of the rule that "A motion cannot be divided unless each part presents a proper question for the assembly to act upon if none of the other parts is adopted" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 272, lines 19-22). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 17, 2011 at 02:24 AM Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 at 02:24 AM Does anyone have a problem with this thinking?No more than I have with thinking in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.