Handbook Contents per Board Motions

[Guest CakeLady]

A:  Board of Directors pass a motion in 2005 to include a certain document in the organization's Representative Handbook. 

B:  A Director on the 2012 Board of Directors revises said Handbook, deleting the document referenced above.

C: The Director presents a motion to the 2012 Board of Directors to approve the Handbook Revision, which the Board does approve.  

 

Question:  Does the motion passed to approve the Handbook Revision automatically rescind the 2005 motion that states the document in question will be included?  OR Does the 2012 Board of Directors need to rescind the 2005 motion prior to voting on the revision?  

 

(Revision in question dealt with "many" documents being deleted from Handbook.  I suspect that members of the 2012 Board of Directors approved the motion without reading the Revision.  Need clarification of where we stand.)  

 

Thank you.

[George Mervosh]

A:  Board of Directors pass a motion in 2005 to include a certain document in the organization's Representative Handbook. 

B:  A Director on the 2012 Board of Directors revises said Handbook, deleting the document referenced above.

C: The Director presents a motion to the 2012 Board of Directors to approve the Handbook Revision, which the Board does approve.  

 

Question:  Does the motion passed to approve the Handbook Revision automatically rescind the 2005 motion that states the document in question will be included?  OR Does the 2012 Board of Directors need to rescind the 2005 motion prior to voting on the revision?  

 

(Revision in question dealt with "many" documents being deleted from Handbook.  I suspect that members of the 2012 Board of Directors approved the motion without reading the Revision.  Need clarification of where we stand.)  

 

Thank you.

 

If the motion in 2012 was to replace the entire document (by way of a revision), yes.

[Guest Edgar]

If the motion in 2012 was to replace the entire document (by way of a revision), yes.

 

Wouldn't that depend on the notice (if any) and not the extent of the change?

 

The r-word has a particular meaning in RONR but (like that other r-word, "reconsider") I'm not sure it's being used in that technical sense here.

[Dan Honemann]

Wouldn't that depend on the notice (if any) and not the extent of the change?

 

The r-word has a particular meaning in RONR but (like that other r-word, "reconsider") I'm not sure it's being used in that technical sense here.

 

Who says notice was required?

[Guest Edgar]

Who says notice was required?

 

No one. But Mr. Mervosh raised the possibility that the entire document might have been replaced by way of an RONR Revision and I was suggesting that the society may have "revised" the bylaws but did not necessarily give notice of an RONR Revision. So whether the changes were extensive (deleting many documents) or minimal (deleting a few documents), the "revised" bylaws need not have been the result of a Notice to Revise.

[Josh Martin]

No one. But Mr. Mervosh raised the possibility that the entire document might have been replaced by way of an RONR Revision and I was suggesting that the society may have "revised" the bylaws but did not necessarily give notice of an RONR Revision. So whether the changes were extensive (deleting many documents) or minimal (deleting a few documents), the "revised" bylaws need not have been the result of a Notice to Revise.

 

Where did the bylaws come into this?

 

The original question was about changes to a "Representative Handbook."

[Guest Edgar]

Where did the bylaws come into this?

 

The original question was about changes to a "Representative Handbook."

 

Yes, Thanks. I meant to say "bylaws". Which raises another question: does the RONR concept of notice of a revision apply to subsidiary documents (e.g. this "handbook")?

[Bruce Lages]

I guess it might if the organization's rules include previous notice requirements for amending these subsidiary documents. But whether the specific rules for revisions vs smaller-scale amendments come into play would probably be a decision for the assembly to make. 

[Josh Martin]

Yes, Thanks. I meant to say "bylaws". Which raises another question: does the RONR concept of notice of a revision apply to subsidiary documents (e.g. this "handbook")?

 

The scope of notice rules also apply to lower-level documents, yes, but changing those lower-level documents doesn't require notice unless the organization's rules so provide (although it lowers the threshold for adoption). The concept of "notice of a revision" certainly doesn't apply if there isn't any notice.

[Guest Edgar]

The concept of "notice of a revision" certainly doesn't apply if there isn't any notice.

 

Yes, but in the absence of such a notice is it misleading to describe the changes (even if extensive) as a Revision? I refer, again, to Mr. Mervosh's reference to replacing the entire document "by way of a revision" by which I take it he means by way of a notice of a revision.

 

I've frequently said on this forum that the concept of a "revision" is all about the notice and doesn't necessarily refer to the extent of the eventual changes. But if I'm mistaken in this I'd like to be set straight.

[Josh Martin]

Yes, but in the absence of such a notice is it misleading to describe the changes (even if extensive) as a Revision? I refer, again, to Mr. Mervosh's reference to replacing the entire document "by way of a revision" by which I take it he means by way of a notice of a revision.

 

I've frequently said on this forum that the concept of a "revision" is all about the notice and doesn't necessarily refer to the extent of the eventual changes. But if I'm mistaken in this I'd like to be set straight.

 

As I understand it, the real key to what makes a revision a revision is that the document is replaced in its entirety with a new document in one fell swoop (that is, in a single motion) as opposed to making isolated changes. It is certainly correct that it "doesn't necessarily refer to the extent of the eventual changes."

 

This does tend to get tangled up in notice issues, as the main purpose of this distinction is to determine whether a change is within the "scope of notice." In a revision, everything is within the scope of notice, but this is not the case for isolated changes. If a document doesn't actually require notice to be revised, however, it's entirely possible to have a revision without any notice.