peaches70 Posted January 10, 2012 at 02:43 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 at 02:43 AM I sumitted an amendment for our annual meeting that will be at the end of January. It was reviewed today by the membership. It has not been placed on the official agenda yet. I was asked to add a word to my amendment, can this be done by me without a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 10, 2012 at 02:51 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 at 02:51 AM I sumitted an amendment for our annual meeting that will be at the end of January. It was reviewed today by the membership. It has not been placed on the official agenda yet. I was asked to add a word to my amendment, can this be done by me without a vote.If there's still time to provide notice of an amendment to the Bylaws, then I think it would also be proper to modify the amendment you have proposed. Otherwise, no.I'd stick around for other opinions, though, as there's not a clear-cut answer to this question in RONR. I'm going out on a limb and hoping RONR, 11th ed., pg. 297, lines 20-23 is applicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches70 Posted January 10, 2012 at 02:57 AM Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 at 02:57 AM the amendment will be presented at the annual meeting to all members in attendance. At that time it is officialy place on the floor for a vote.We allow an amendment to be amended and voted on, then the amendment as amended is voted on. My question is do I have to wait until the meeting, to make any changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 10, 2012 at 04:05 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 at 04:05 AM My question is do I have to wait until the meeting, to make any changes.Not if there is still time to provide notice of an amendment to the bylaws. In such a case, you could modify the notice of your motion to amend the bylaws. Otherwise, you'll need to wait until the motion is pending and make the amendment like anyone else (and the amendment must then be within the scope of the notice).But again, stick around for other opinions, as there is no clear-cut answer to this question in RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 10, 2012 at 01:47 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 at 01:47 PM Not if there is still time to provide notice of an amendment to the bylaws. In such a case, you could modify the notice of your motion to amend the bylaws. Otherwise, you'll need to wait until the motion is pending and make the amendment like anyone else (and the amendment must then be within the scope of the notice).But again, stick around for other opinions, as there is no clear-cut answer to this question in RONR.The facts as stated indicate that Jacquie has given notice (we assume properly) of her intention to move, at her membership's annual meeting, the adoption of an amendment to the bylaws. She then goes on to say that it was "reviewed today by the membership", and that she was "asked to add a word" to her proposed amendment. This seems to indicate an additional, customized step in the amendment process which may or may not have some bearing on the question which has been asked.Putting that aside, however, I do not think that there is any requirement in RONR that a proposed amendment must be moved in exactly the same language as was included in the notice, but any change in wording, in order to be permissable, would have to be clearly within the scope of the notice given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Ralph Posted January 10, 2012 at 02:06 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 at 02:06 PM I'm not aware of RONR expressing a need for an amendment (an amendment of what, anyway?) to be "reviewed by the membership" before being placed on the "official agenda". This would tend to suggest that Jacquie's organization uses its own particular rules for amendments, and those particular rules should be consulted.A lot may turn on what the word is. If, for example, it is "not", it may well take the amendment outside of the scope of any notice given! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted January 10, 2012 at 02:08 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 at 02:08 PM ...Putting that aside, however, I do not think that there is any requirement in RONR that a proposed amendment must be moved in exactly the same language as was included in the notice, but any change in wording, in order to be permissable, would have to be clearly within the scope of the notice given.That makes sense. Looking at the original post, I've been thinking that the fact that only one single word was to be added -- which sounds so small and harmless -- does not in any way guarantee that the changed language stays within the scope of the original notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 10, 2012 at 02:10 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 at 02:10 PM Putting that aside, however, I do not think that there is any requirement in RONR that a proposed amendment must be moved in exactly the same language as was included in the notice, but any change in wording, in order to be permissable, would have to be clearly within the scope of the notice given.Using the example of raising the dues to $20 found on p. 122 ll. 25-26, a motion to amend to strike out $20 and insert $25, if adopted, would not be out of order, but would simply destroy the effect of the notice. Correct?Would the consequence then of the member making the initial motion to raise dues to $25 (contrary to the amount of $20 given in the notice) also be not out of order, but would also destroy the effect of the notice then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 10, 2012 at 02:15 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 at 02:15 PM Using the example of raising the dues to $20 found on p. 122 ll. 25-26, a motion to amend to strike out $20 and insert $25, if adopted, would not be out of order, but would simply destroy the effect of the notice. Correct?Would the consequence then of the member making the initial motion to raise dues to $25 (contrary to the amount of $20 given in the notice) also be not out of order, but would also destroy the effect of the notice then?The notice as originally given will remain in full force and effect for the purpose of determining the validity of subsequently made subsidiary motions to Amend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 11, 2012 at 01:44 AM Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 at 01:44 AM Putting that aside, however, I do not think that there is any requirement in RONR that a proposed amendment must be moved in exactly the same language as was included in the notice, but any change in wording, in order to be permissable, would have to be clearly within the scope of the notice given.Okay, that makes sense.If the change was beyond the scope given, could a new notice be provided so long as there was time?Using the example of raising the dues to $20 found on p. 122 ll. 25-26, a motion to amend to strike out $20 and insert $25, if adopted, would not be out of order, but would simply destroy the effect of the notice. Correct?Would the consequence then of the member making the initial motion to raise dues to $25 (contrary to the amount of $20 given in the notice) also be not out of order, but would also destroy the effect of the notice then?Well, the concept of "destroying the effect of a notice" relates to situations where notice is not required, but merely changes the voting threshold necessary - thus, it is more applicable when ASPA is applied to an ordinary motion, not to the Bylaws. When notice is required, an amendment outside the scope of the notice is out of order (and likewise, it is out of order for the motion maker to modify the motion in such a way that it would exceed the scope of notice). See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 595, lines 3-8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 11, 2012 at 10:54 AM Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 at 10:54 AM If the change was beyond the scope given, could a new notice be provided so long as there was time?Sure, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 11, 2012 at 11:36 AM Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 at 11:36 AM Sure, why not? Absent any societal rule on how notice is to be given, RONR provides for two methods for giving notice: at the previous meeting (if within a quarterly time interval) or in the call of the upcoming meeting. If the bylaws require 30 days notice for a bylaw amendment with no mention of the "how", and the call (including said notice) goes out 45 days in advance, would it be allowed then for the secretary to issue a separate new notice of an anticipated change to the proposed amendment (that exceeds the original scope) within days 44-31? Or would an updated call of the meeting need to be re-issued? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 11, 2012 at 11:43 AM Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 at 11:43 AM Absent any societal rule on how notice is to be given, RONR provides for two methods for giving notice: at the previous meeting (if within a quarterly time interval) or in the call of the upcoming meeting. If the bylaws require 30 days notice for a bylaw amendment with no mention of the "how", and the call (including said notice) goes out 45 days in advance, would it be allowed then for the secretary to issue a separate new notice of an anticipated change to the proposed amendment (that exceeds the original scope) within days 44-31? Or would an updated call of the meeting need to be re-issued?If the notice provided complies with all applicable bylaw requirements, it will be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 11, 2012 at 11:46 AM Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 at 11:46 AM If the notice provided complies with all applicable bylaw requirements, it will be fine.Okay, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.