David A Foulkes Posted March 14, 2012 at 01:32 PM Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 at 01:32 PM In a previous thread, it has been stated that in the case of attendance of 100% of the membership at a meeting, the requirement of previous notice of bylaw amendments is not applicable as there are no absentees, and therefore there are no absentee rights to protect, this being the object of notice in such a case.On p. 581 (ll. 15-18) it is noted that the requirement of notice restricts amendments to the bylaw amendment to the scope of notice (cf. p.594-596 and SC6 p.306).Does this mean in such a case that a bylaw amendment proposing (as used for example on p. 595) an increase of dues from $10 to $25 is not restricted to primary amendments offering only values between those two amounts? In other words, a primary amendment to strike $25 and insert $50 is in order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 14, 2012 at 01:42 PM Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 at 01:42 PM Don't see why not. Whose ox is being gored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.