Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Vote on Bylaws Amendment, Under What Heading?


Recommended Posts

But not if notice is required, as is frequently the case with bylaw amendments. You couldn't just tell the (bylaws) committee to gin up some bylaw amendments, report on them next meeting, and be able to consider them (otherwise sight unseen) then.

John, we're certainly assuming, as Mr. Sullo said that notice is required, and the committee can certainly give notice. His initial question doesn't indicate if a member gave notice or if the committee did. If the committee did and moves for the adoption of the amendments during their report, you take it up right there. I just wanted to give him two points of reference, since either could be applicable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found it. Thanks!

(You mean neither of you could have typed "General Orders" next to the reference, just to answer the question? . . . ;) Gotta make me work for it, huh?)

Am I right in assuming that any motion requiring previous notice would fall under the same heading (unless it was made as part of a report)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That leads to the next question: Where would other motions requiring notice be made? New Business?

Let's put it this way: With the exception of amendments to the Bylaws, the fact that a motion requires notice does not affect where it falls in the order of business. So yes, the motion would come up under New Business, unless there is some other reason it would be taken up under a different heading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Etiological questions don't usually get too far on this board, but I'm going to ask it anyway: Why?

What makes a bylaws change different from any other motion requiring notice, that one should be a general order and one should be new business? I'm under the impression that the purpose of previous notice is to allow the greatest number of interested parties to be attendant when the motion is made. If so, shouldn't there be some guarantee that the motion actually will be made at that meeting?

Link to post
Share on other sites

First question: I am tempted to answer "Just beCAUSE, that's why!" (Massachusetts folks have such big vocabularies.)

Guarantee? Sure, see p. 307, line 23,26.

The cited rule is in the context of R/ASPA but it seems sufficiently general that it should apply to any previously noticed motion. After all, any member is free to move anything (within the purposes of the association, of course).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Etiological questions don't usually get too far on this board, but I'm going to ask it anyway: Why?

What makes a bylaws change different from any other motion requiring notice, that one should be a general order and one should be new business? I'm under the impression that the purpose of previous notice is to allow the greatest number of interested parties to be attendant when the motion is made. If so, shouldn't there be some guarantee that the motion actually will be made at that meeting?

If you are willing to carefully review the history of the rules relating to motions to amend the bylaws through all of the editions of Robert's Rules of Order and Parliamentary Law you will find your answer. If you don't want to bother with that, just accept the rule as it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First question: I am tempted to answer "Just beCAUSE, that's why!" (Massachusetts folks have such big vocabularies.)

No, just a big thesaurus. ;)

Guarantee? Sure, see p. 307, line 23,26.

The cited rule is in the context of R/ASPA but it seems sufficiently general that it should apply to any previously noticed motion. After all, any member is free to move anything (within the purposes of the association, of course).

Therefore, if member A gives previous notice and then no one brings up the measure at the next meeting, it's not incumbent upon the chair to do anything to rectify it. Right?

If you are willing to carefully review the history of the rules relating to motions to amend the bylaws through all of the editions of Robert's Rules of Order and Parliamentary Law you will find your answer.

I might just do that, Dan.

If you don't want to bother with that, just accept the rule as it is.

But, more than likely, I'll do this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore, if member A gives previous notice and then no one brings up the measure at the next meeting, it's not incumbent upon the chair to do anything to rectify it. Right?

Right. As chair, that (i.e., nothing) is what I would do. The fewer motions that are made, the faster we can go home and watch the Wizards game. (Or the Bruins, perhaps, but why?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. As chair, that (i.e., nothing) is what I would do. The fewer motions that are made, the faster we can go home and watch the Wizards game. (Or the Bruins, perhaps, but why?)

So you wouldn't tell the member that it is order to make his motion at this time, if he chooses to make it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right; I'm completely impartial as chair, remember.

(Of course if I really wanted action on the motion... but that is another story.)

How does it show partiality to let a member who gave previous notice of a bylaw amendment know it is in order to bring up his motion under General Orders? I'd suggest the average member has no clue as to when they can bring it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does it show partiality to let a member who gave previous notice of a bylaw amendment know it is in order to bring up his motion under General Orders? I'd suggest the average member has no clue as to when they can bring it up.

The conversation had moved to "other" motions requiring previous notice. The bylaws amendment, apparently, is a different animal. I am interested, though, in the correct procedure regarding a bylaws amendment. When it comes up in General Orders, does the chair call on the person who gave notice to make the motion? Does the chair just state the motion as if it has been made?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the motion to amend the bylaws isn't made under general orders but under new business should the chair rule it out of order?

No, why would he? RONR gives it a boost in priority over new business, but I can't think of a reason it can't be made there if no one wants it made under general orders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...