Motion to Amend; and Division of A Question

[Guest Randall]

I am the Advisory Committee Chairman of an organization. After prior notice is given, I shall present proposed amendments to our Bylaws to the Board of Directors. There is one proposed amendment that disenfranchises the right of the Board of Directors to approve the selection of the Editors of our community newspaper. It is within the scope of notice, as per RONR p. 576, to move to amend this proposed amendment, whereby the Board of Directors can vote to maintain their power to approve the Editor. I recognize that a majority vote is required to adopt the motion to Amend. I'm then attempting to Divide the Question by offering the Board two alternatives; one which removes such power, and one which preserves such power. Kindly explain the proper procedure that I should follow.

[Josh Martin]

I am the Advisory Committee Chairman of an organization. After prior notice is given, I shall present proposed amendments to our Bylaws to the Board of Directors. There is one proposed amendment that disenfranchises the right of the Board of Directors to approve the selection of the Editors of our community newspaper. It is within the scope of notice, as per RONR p. 576, to move to amend this proposed amendment, whereby the Board of Directors can vote to maintain their power to approve the Editor. I recognize that a majority vote is required to adopt the motion to Amend. I'm then attempting to Divide the Question by offering the Board two alternatives; one which removes such power, and one which preserves such power. Kindly explain the proper procedure that I should follow.

What else is contained in the amendment which "disenfranchises the right of the Board of Directors to approve the selection of the Editors of our community newspaper?" Divide the Question is used when a motion contains two or more parts which may be easily separated, each of which can stand on its own as an independent main motion. It's not yet clear to me that this is the case with this motion or if that is truly your goal.

Since multiple conflicting amendments to the Bylaws may be considered in succession and the last one adopted takes effect, it may be preferable to simply prepare multiple amendments as alternatives, if the motion is of such a nature that it cannot be easily divided.

[Guest Edgar]

I'm then attempting to Divide the Question by offering the Board two alternatives; one which removes such power, and one which preserves such power.

As Mr. Martin suggests, that's not what's meant by a division of the question. All questions are naturally "divided" between doing something (in this case, removing the power) and not doing something (in this case, preserving the power). Or, in other words, voting "yes" or voting "no".

Perhaps you could rephrase your question.

[Guest Randall]

This is the format that I am intending to use. Forgive the length if you would.

Note: Delegates should vote for either Motion 1a, or 1b

MOTION 1a. Proposes to eliminate the present right of the Delegate Assembly to approve the selection of the Editor or Co-Editors of the UCO Reporter. A majority of the seated Delegates is required to approve ITEM 1., in order for this proposed amendment to be included with the rest of the amendments.

OR

1 b. Proposes to maintain the present right of the Delegate Assembly to approve the selection of the Editor or Co-Editors of the UCO Reporter. A majority of the seated Delegates is required to approve ITEM 2., in order for this proposed amendment to be included with the rest of the amendments.

ITEM. 1 (Original Proposed Amendment)

F. EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

. . . .

The Editorial Committee shall consist of an Editor, or Co-Editors if applicable, and up to four (4) Associate Editors, all selected by the President, of UCO and

subject to the approval of the Officers' Committee and the Executive Board. and the Delegate Assembly. There shall be no more than four (4) Associate Editors

who will be selected by the Editor or Co-Editors.

. . . .

ITEM 2. (Amendment Proposed by the Advisory Committee)

F. EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

. . . .

The Editorial Committee shall consist of an Editor, or Co-Editors if applicable, and up to four (4) Associate Editors, all selected by the President, of UCO and

subject to the approval of the Officers' Committee, the Executive Board, and the Delegate Assembly. There shall be no more than four (4) Associate Editors

who will be selected by the Editor or Co-Editors.

. . . .

[Gary c Tesser]

Well, he rephrased the question.

[Gary c Tesser]

This is the format that I am intending to use. ...

Let's see how confused I am so far. First, two or three items of housecleaning.

1. Guest Randall, what is the role of the board of the board of directors in the amendment process?

2. When it says, "Note: Delegates should vote for either Motion 1a, or 1b," where does ITEM 2 come in?

3. When it says "A majority of the seated Delegates is required to approve ..." is that the language used in the bylaws themselves for their amendment? And does anyone know whether that refers to a plain majority vote, or to an actual vote of a majority of the total number of delegates (RONR, 11th Ed., p 404) -- which would give absent delegates and abstentions the same effect as negative votes?

Now to the main issues:

4. In the original post, it was said that "There is one proposed amendment that disenfranchises the right of the Board of Directors to approve the selection of the Editors of our community newspaper." But it looks to me as if both proposals leave the executive board -- the same thing, I trust? -- untouched, but ITEM 1 removes the delegate assembly, not the board, from the selection of the editors. Was this a clerical error, or am I missing the point?

5a. Just in case I do have it straight, is the following correct? Both proposals change the editorial committee by giving the president (with the approval of somebody, to be determined) the authority to select co-editors, and removes that authority to select associate editors, and gives the authority to select associate editors to the editor or co-editors?

5b. So the difference between the proposals is that Item 1 would have the selection of editor, or co-editors, subject to the approval of three bodies (what's an Officers' Committee?), while Item 2 makes the selection subject to the approval of only two of them?

5c. Given (or correcting) the above, wouldn't it be easier just to propose Item 2, and if the delegates want to take the third body (which is it, Guest Randall?) out of the approval process, just amend Item 2 by striking out "and the delegate assembly" (and rewording for grammar)?

5d. I don't think RONR goes for having the delegates vote for 1a or 1b, as if it's an election.

6. I'm pretty sure that division of the question doesn't enter into it.

(That's all I got so far. Pleasantly surprised I got a citation in. )

[Shmuel Gerber]

I am the Advisory Committee Chairman of an organization. After prior notice is given, I shall present proposed amendments to our Bylaws to the Board of Directors. There is one proposed amendment that disenfranchises the right of the Board of Directors to approve the selection of the Editors of our community newspaper. It is within the scope of notice, as per RONR p. 576, to move to amend this proposed amendment, whereby the Board of Directors can vote to maintain their power to approve the Editor. I recognize that a majority vote is required to adopt the motion to Amend. I'm then attempting to Divide the Question by offering the Board two alternatives; one which removes such power, and one which preserves such power. Kindly explain the proper procedure that I should follow.

This is the format that I am intending to use. Forgive the length if you would.

Note: Delegates should vote for either Motion 1a, or 1b

MOTION 1a. Proposes to eliminate the present right of the Delegate Assembly to approve the selection of the Editor or Co-Editors of the UCO Reporter. A majority of the seated Delegates is required to approve ITEM 1., in order for this proposed amendment to be included with the rest of the amendments.

OR

1 b. Proposes to maintain the present right of the Delegate Assembly to approve the selection of the Editor or Co-Editors of the UCO Reporter. A majority of the seated Delegates is required to approve ITEM 2., in order for this proposed amendment to be included with the rest of the amendments.

There are a few things here that might be getting in the way of a clear answer.

1) Why is the advisory committee reporting to the board? What role does the board have in the amendment process, and what role does the committee have? (And, on ancillary note, has the committee approved what you plan to do as "the Advisory Committee Chairman"?)

Your first post says, "It is within the scope of notice, as per RONR p. 576, to move to amend this proposed amendment, whereby the Board of Directors can vote to maintain their power to approve the Editor." But then your second post says that "a majority of the seated delegates is required to approve ..."

2) Why would a majority of the delegates be required merely "for this proposed amendment to be included with the rest of the amendments"? And what do you have in mind when you say "included with"?

3) It doesn't really matter much, but originally you wrote, "There is one proposed amendment that disenfranchises the right of the Board of Directors ...", but looking at what you labeled "Original Proposed Amendment" it seems that it would keep the power of the Executive Board [which I assume is what you are referring to as the "Board of Directors"?] to approve the editor without the Delegate Assembly's approval, whereas it is the committee's version that would take it away (what you call "disenfranchise").

ITEM. 1 (Original Proposed Amendment)

F. EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

. . . .

The Editorial Committee shall consist of an Editor, or Co-Editors if applicable, and up to four (4) Associate Editors, all selected by the President, of UCO and

subject to the approval of the Officers' Committee and the Executive Board. and the Delegate Assembly. There shall be no more than four (4) Associate Editors

who will be selected by the Editor or Co-Editors.

. . . .

ITEM 2. (Amendment Proposed by the Advisory Committee)

F. EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

. . . .

The Editorial Committee shall consist of an Editor, or Co-Editors if applicable, and up to four (4) Associate Editors, all selected by the President, of UCO and

subject to the approval of the Officers' Committee, the Executive Board, and the Delegate Assembly. There shall be no more than four (4) Associate Editors

who will be selected by the Editor or Co-Editors.

. . . .

The only difference I see between these two is the striking out of the words "and the Delegate Assembly" (and the required grammatical adjustments). I still have no idea why the Delegates would be asked to vote on whether to "include" either set of amendments "with the rest of the amendments", but the question on striking out those words can simply be posed separately from the other amendments, as it is completely independent of them (or so it seems to me).

[Shmuel Gerber]

Let's see how confused I am so far. First, two or three items of housecleaning.

...

Oh, rats. I've got to start using the page that lets me know when someone else has posted a response while I'm slaving away on mine, but that one doesn't have a preview feature. I thought I was safe when Gary seemed to shrug off the rephrased question, but I should have known better.

[Gary c Tesser]

At least probably neither of us got anything much wrong this time.

[Tim Wynn]

At least probably neither of us . . .

. . . should have known better.

I was exhausted just from reading the questions; I don't think I'll recover from the carbon-copy answers.

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm still wondering:

If the draft amendment would remove a board power, and a members is against removing that power, no amendment to the motion is necessary. One would simply argue against it in debate, and attempt to convince others to vote No on it. That is the normal response when one opposes what a motion proposes.

Also, motions should normally be constructed so that members may vote Yes or No on them. Forcing someone to vote Yes on either 1.a or 1.b is improper. What if a member opposed both?