Conflict with bylaws

[Guest Bill]

In a section of our rule book there is an exception made for how rules that apply to this section of our association may be amended. It states they may be amended at any annual membership meeting, without notice. Our bylaws state that all rule change proposals to be voted on at the annual membership meeting must have 60 days notice. The exception in the rules is in conflict with the bylaws. What is the proper way to correct this? Should a motion be made at the membership meeting to declare this exception null and void and be voted on? Can the bylaws committee declare it null and void, can the Board? We know it shouldn't stay in the rule book, but are not sure how to get it out.

Thanks

[Guest Edgar]

Are you sure that the 60-day requirement in your bylaws applies to your "rule book" (or, perhaps, does it only apply to changes in your bylaws)?

But if there really is a conflict, raise a point of order to that effect at the next meeting (of the body that's authorized to make changes in the rules).

[Josh Martin]

What is the proper way to correct this?

Firstly, I agree with Edgar that I'd take a closer look to see if they are truly in conflict. Perhaps the rule in the Bylaws only applies to amendments to the Bylaws, and the rule in the rule book applies to other rules.

Should a motion be made at the membership meeting to declare this exception null and void and be voted on?

Well, it might not have to come to a vote.

If they are in conflict, a member should raise a point of order at a meeting of the body authorized to amend the rule book that the rule in the rule book conflicts with the rule in the Bylaws and is therefore null and void. The chair will either rule the point well taken (meaning he agrees) or not well taken (meaning he does not) and will give the reasoning for his ruling. The chair could also make the ruling that the rule is null and void at his own initiative, rather than waiting for a Point of Order. So that might settle the matter right there.

If necessary, however, you may Appeal from the ruling of the chair. This motion places the decision in the hands of the assembly. It requires a second and is debatable, and in the end the chair asks "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" Those who agree with the chair's ruling vote yes, those who disagree vote no. A majority vote in the negative is required to overturn the chair's ruling.

Can the bylaws committee declare it null and void, can the Board?

A Point of Order (and possibly an Appeal) may be raised at a meeting of the body that is authorized to amend the rule book. So probably not the bylaws committee. Maybe the board, depending on what your rules say. But it's possible the general membership will have to fix this.

[Guest Nancy N.]

...If they are in conflict, a member should raise a point of order at a meeting of the body authorized to amend the rule book that the rule in the rule book conflicts with the rule in the Bylaws and is therefore null and void. The chair will either rule the point well taken (meaning he agrees) or not well taken (meaning he does not) and will give the reasoning for his ruling.

Josh, looking at p. 26, at what time in a meeting do you think such a point of order would be appropriate? IIRC, previous discussions on the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum have concluded that a specific violation must be occurring at the moment: in this case, that the rule book's rule, which conflicts with a bylaws provision, would be being invoked on the spot. And which means that, complementarily, raising a point of order would not be in order just any ol' time. P. 247, lines 23 - 24, about "any pending question out of which it may arise," seems to say this. And of course this necessary condition would make raising a point of order concerning an instance of the rule book's rule being applied outside of a meeting context would be very problematical. (Which is why I have been unhappy about this consensus.)

(Or I might be misremembering that discussion; or I might have misunderstood what was said, in the first place; or maybe we were all wet back then. Certainly we were younger.)

The chair could also make the ruling that the rule is null and void at his own initiative, rather than waiting for a Point of Order....

Again, at what point? Perhaps as a part of his officer's report? "Item three: it has come to your president's (i.e., my) attention that Rule 14 in the Rule Book is in conflict with the bylaws. Accordingly, your chair hereby rules that Rule 14 is null and void. And, following the example given at the top of p. 121 in tiny print, the president (i.e., I) hereby directs the membership to cross Rule 14 out of their copies of the Rule Book, and hereby directs the Publications Committee to omit Rule 14 from further printings of the Rule Book."

Like that, do you think?

C T 2

[Josh Martin]

Josh, looking at p. 26, at what time in a meeting do you think such a point of order would be appropriate? IIRC, previous discussions on the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum have concluded that a specific violation must be occurring at the moment: in this case, that the rule book's rule, which conflicts with a bylaws provision, would be being invoked on the spot. And which means that, complementarily, raising a point of order would not be in order just any ol' time. P. 247, lines 23 - 24, about "any pending question out of which it may arise," seems to say this. And of course this necessary condition would make raising a point of order concerning an instance of the rule book's rule being applied outside of a meeting context would be very problematical. (Which is why I have been unhappy about this consensus.)

(Or I might be misremembering that discussion; or I might have misunderstood what was said, in the first place; or maybe we were all wet back then. Certainly we were younger.)

Again, at what point? Perhaps as a part of his officer's report? "Item three: it has come to your president's (i.e., my) attention that Rule 14 in the Rule Book is in conflict with the bylaws. Accordingly, your chair hereby rules that Rule 14 is null and void. And, following the example given at the top of p. 121 in tiny print, the president (i.e., I) hereby directs the membership to cross Rule 14 out of their copies of the Rule Book, and hereby directs the Publications Committee to omit Rule 14 from further printings of the Rule Book."

I would think that the rule on pg. 247 that you're referring to doesn't strictly apply in the case of a continuing breach. If I'm right about that, I would recommend that it be handled during New Business, or during the president's report if he makes the ruling on his own initiative.

[Dan Honemann]

The concern seems to be about the validity of the rule in the rule book which says that the rules in it may be amended at any annual membership meeting without notice, whereas the bylaws say (or may say) that such amendments require 60 days previous notice. The question asked is "What is the proper way to correct this?"

It seems to me that the way to correct this (if a conflict does in fact exist) is to amend the rule book to bring it into conformity with the bylaws. If, prior to that happening, a motion proposing an amendment to one of the rules is made without the requisite notice having been given, then raise a point of order at that time.