David A Foulkes Posted January 23, 2012 at 12:14 PM Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 at 12:14 PM In the Bylaws Article on Officers, several references are made to term of office, spread out over three Sections (2, 3 & 4). Each reference is a variation on the theme, and the preferred one (serve for three years or until....) is not even in the section on Term of Office.As I read p.593 ll.1-14, it appears an amendment to the bylaws can be offered that incorporates all these changes, covering three Sections at the same time, with the effect of striking all the references, and inserting the one preferred reference in the Term of Office section. In other words, I would not need to submit three separate amendments, one for each Section to be amended.Is this an accurate understanding of this RONR passage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 23, 2012 at 06:34 PM Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 at 06:34 PM Why not? For that matter, I'm having difficulty distinguishing this on p. 593 from "conforming amendments" on p. 273 - 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 24, 2012 at 02:58 AM Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 at 02:58 AM In the Bylaws Article on Officers, several references are made to term of office, spread out over three Sections (2, 3 & 4). Each reference is a variation on the theme, and the preferred one (serve for three years or until....) is not even in the section on Term of Office.As I read p.593 ll.1-14, it appears an amendment to the bylaws can be offered that incorporates all these changes, covering three Sections at the same time, with the effect of striking all the references, and inserting the one preferred reference in the Term of Office section. In other words, I would not need to submit three separate amendments, one for each Section to be amended.Is this an accurate understanding of this RONR passage?Yes. If a change requires multiple changes throughout the document, the change may be made by means of a single motion to substitute, and I would advise doing so to save time and avoid the potential for conflicting language.For that matter, I'm having difficulty distinguishing this on p. 593 from "conforming amendments" on p. 273 - 4.The "conforming amendments" described on pgs. 273-274 involve multiple amendments offered in one subsidiary motion to Amend. The process described on pg. 593 involves an incidental main motion to amend the bylaws which is similar to a motion to substitute. The concepts are similar, but the actual processes involved are somewhat different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 25, 2012 at 06:25 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 at 06:25 PM ... Well, then. Does anyone see anything actually different at the top of p. 593, such that it is applicable particularly, or uniquely, to bylaws, from what can be applied to any document at all that needs multiple uniform changes? Offhand (actually, after a couple of days' mulling), I don't see any, in which case, does anyone see any compelling reason for this passage to appear here, other than (commendably; pace, A-Team) to make it easier for bylaws-writers to avoid mistakes? The "conforming amendments" described on pgs. 273-274 involve multiple amendments offered in one subsidiary motion to Amend. The process described on pg. 593 involves an incidental main motion to amend the bylaws which is similar to a motion to substitute. The concepts are similar, but the actual processes involved are somewhat different.Umm. Given which, I'm inclined to think that it would be the safer and more efficient to use the "conforming amendments" procedure, perforce adapted to its use as an incidental main motion. Does anyone see a downside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 26, 2012 at 12:45 AM Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 at 12:45 AM Well, then. Does anyone see anything actually different at the top of p. 593, such that it is applicable particularly, or uniquely, to bylaws, from what can be applied to any document at all that needs multiple uniform changes?The procedure on pg. 593 can be applied to any document of the society which needs multiple uniform changes.Offhand (actually, after a couple of days' mulling), I don't see any, in which case, does anyone see any compelling reason for this passage to appear here, other than (commendably; pace, A-Team) to make it easier for bylaws-writers to avoid mistakes?I imagine the passage appears where it does because Bylaws would be the sort of document most commonly amended in this manner. Additionally, it is important that the procedure is defined here in order to clarify the rules for scope of notice when such a procedure is used.Umm. Given which, I'm inclined to think that it would be the safer and more efficient to use the "conforming amendments" procedure, perforce adapted to its use as an incidental main motion. Does anyone see a downside?While I don't see a downside to using a procedure similar to that for conforming amendments in place of the procedure described on pg. 593, I'm not sure it is necessarily any safer or more efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.