New twist in ratifying amendments to constitution

[Guest Fuzzy Beekeeper]

At a regularly called meeting of our church, a motion was made, seconded and passed by voice vote to approve three minor changes in our constitution.  We are now ready to ratify after a 30-day wait (per our constitution).  Some members are questioning one of the changes.

 

The original motion that passed was to approve all amendments at once. 

 

Our constitution reads:

 

...B.   be ratified, without change, at the next properly called meeting by a two-thirds vote of those Voting Members present and voting; and ...

 

I note the "without change" above.

 

My understanding is that if the membership wants to remove one of the amendments, that means that the whole original motion is rejected since the original motion was all inclusive.  The ratification cannot pass with an amendment to the original motion at this time,  

 

In order to make one change, we have to start over with notification to the members of the amendments, wait 60 days to hold a meeting to vote to approve, and then wait the required 30 days to ratify the new (now changed) amendments at another meeting.

 

Am I correct in my interpretation?  

 

Can we now vote to ratify these changes individually even though we voted approval for them all as a package in one motion at the first meeting?

 

I have realized that we should have approved the amendments individually so that we could ratify them individually.

 

Thanks.

 

Fuzzy Beekeeper

[jstackpo]

Sounds like it is "all or nothing" to me.

 

However, your use of "ratify" and a "two reading" system for bylaws amendments, is not the RONR "standard" in either case.  So, ultimately, it will be up to you, collectively, to decide what you can and cannot do following your (not RONR's) rules.

[Chris Harrison]

I am wondering if although the assembly adopted a motion to vote on all of them at once if that would necessarily strip the right of a single member to demand one or all of the amendments be considered separately (RONR pp. 274-275)?  Also, if that isn't an option I wonder if it would be in order to give previous notice regarding Rescinding (or Amending depending on the circumstances) the motion to vote on the amendments at once?  Or would that violate the scope of notice (of the bylaw amendments)?

[Guest Edgar]

Or would that violate the scope of notice (of the bylaw amendments)?

 

I'd say that the "without change" provision in the bylaws supersedes (and renders moot) any scope of the notice consideration.

 

I'd probably also argue that, although the bylaws will be changed in three places, this is being accomplished by a singe (indivisible) amendment, and not three "separate" amendments (so that, therefore, a member can't demand their separate consideration). But, as always, it may depend on the specifics. In the end, the assembly will decide.

[Josh Martin]

I am wondering if although the assembly adopted a motion to vote on all of them at once if that would necessarily strip the right of a single member to demand one or all of the amendments be considered separately (RONR pp. 274-275)?  Also, if that isn't an option I wonder if it would be in order to give previous notice regarding Rescinding (or Amending depending on the circumstances) the motion to vote on the amendments at once?  Or would that violate the scope of notice (of the bylaw amendments)?

 

Normally, I think either option would be in order. I don't think it would violate scope of notice, but it may violate the "without change" rule in the society's bylaws.