Seriatim

[Guest Barb Parrott]

When a lengthy motion is dealt with seriatum (in its parts), when does someone who wants to add a part get to do that?

[Trina]

When considering a motion by paragraph or seriatim, after all the parts of the motion have been dealt with (and possibly amended) in turn, the entire motion is then opened to amendment. At that point you can offer an amendment (adding the new part you have in mind).

'After all parts have been considered, the chair opens the entire document to amendment. At this time additional parts can be inserted, or parts can be struck out, or any one of them can be further amended.' (RONR 11th ed. p. 278 ll. 26-30)

[Guest Woodman]

Can an Assembly waive the seriatum reading of a revision to the bylaws by vote - particularly if the entire assembly has been provided details in advance?

[jstackpo]

Yes - actually no "reading" of the bylaws (a long motion, I presume) is the default, but seriatum is a choice that the assmebly can make (by majority vote). So you don't "waive" it -- you just decline to do it in the first place.

But don't be too sure that folks don't have a few suggestios to improve (maybe) the proposed new bylaws, especially after actually reading them! And if there are more than just a few, seriatim is the better organized way to go.

[Tim Wynn]

Yes - actually no "reading" of the bylaws (a long motion, I presume) is the default, but seriatum is a choice that the assmebly can make (by majority vote). So you don't "waive" it -- you just decline to do it in the first place.

But see RONR (11th ed.), p. 593, ll. 33-35.

[jstackpo]

Yeah... but it's "should", not a "must", and Section 28 tells you how to get to the "should" procedure.

[Josh Martin]

Yeah... but it's "should", not a "must", and Section 28 tells you how to get to the "should" procedure.

Okay. In Section 28 you should take a look at RONR, 11th ed., pg. 277, line 33 - pg. 278, line 1.

[Gary c Tesser]

Umm. Yes, "as a matter of course" raises this statement's "should" from advice to a rule, I think. (Good catch, Mr Martin.) But let's not lose track -- Dr Stackpole's reply's (post 4) first word -- "yes" -- to the, um, secondary original poster, ow ow, Guest Woodman -- was accurate.

(But for hevvins sake, can't nobody handle Latin around here without Mr Elsman to hold their hand?)

[Dan Honemann]

Umm. Yes, "as a matter of course" raises this statement's "should" from advice to a rule, I think. (Good catch, Mr Martin.) But let's not lose track -- Dr Stackpole's reply's (post 4) first word -- "yes" -- to the, um, secondary original poster, ow ow, Guest Woodman -- was accurate.

(But for hevvins sake, can't nobody handle Latin around here without Mr Elsman to hold their hand?)

But it's still not a "rule" in the ordinary sense. If the chair does not initiate seriatim consideration of a proposed revision of the bylaws, the proper course of action is not to raise a point of order that the rules are being violated. If a member feels that the revision should be considered seriatim, the proper course of action is to make a motion to do so. And vice versa (to toss in some more Latin).