Amendments to Constitution or Bylaws

[Guest27506]

Say that there are two amendments being put forth for an organization's Constitution or Bylaws. One amends the document by adding in a position requirement and the other amends the document to move that entire article to a separate location of the document for clarity sake (the amendment text does not include the language from the first amendment).

 

If the case were an amendment to increase dues to $10 and another to increase to $15, the second would logically supersede the first because it deals with changing the same meaning. Though I couldn't locate anything in RONR concerning the first scenario.

 

Does Robert's Rules say anything concerning multiple amendments to the same sections that are non-contradictory?

 

(In my organization, amendments are required to be voted on in a referendum, so the first amendment wouldn't go into immediate effect after the organization's approval.)

[Josh Martin]

Say that there are two amendments being put forth for an organization's Constitution or Bylaws. One amends the document by adding in a position requirement and the other amends the document to move that entire article to a separate location of the document for clarity sake (the amendment text does not include the language from the first amendment).

 

If the case were an amendment to increase dues to $10 and another to increase to $15, the second would logically supersede the first because it deals with changing the same meaning. Though I couldn't locate anything in RONR concerning the first scenario.

 

Does Robert's Rules say anything concerning multiple amendments to the same sections that are non-contradictory?

 

(In my organization, amendments are required to be voted on in a referendum, so the first amendment wouldn't go into immediate effect after the organization's approval.)

 

It would seem to me that if both amendments are adopted, the section will be moved and it will have the position requirement added. I'd just have the chair clarify that with a few "Without objection..." statements and be sure to clean up the language when they get sent to the referendum. I don't think it really matters which order you process them in.

[Guest27506]

It would seem to me that if both amendments are adopted, the section will be moved and it will have the position requirement added.

That would be what makes sense, but RONR is silent on the issue? It's hard to imagine in all the years of RONR's use that this hasn't been an issue and dealt with, though if that's the case, I'm having a difficult time finding it.

 

 

I'd just have the chair clarify that with a few "Without objection..." statements and be sure to clean up the language when they get sent to the referendum.

Our bylaws require each proposed amendment to be voted on separately. Can you clarify what is meant by "without objection statements" please?

[Gary c Tesser]

..., but RONR is silent on the issue? It's hard to imagine in all the years of RONR's use that this hasn't been an issue and dealt with

 

For heavens sake, what's the issue??!?

 

... Our bylaws require each proposed amendment to be voted on separately. Can you clarify what is meant by "without objection statements" please?

 

(If I may...) Mr Martin is talking about processing "routine business or on questions of  little importance" by the procedure of  unanimous consent (RONR 11th Ed, p. 54 -56), or in RONR - In Brief, p. 68, which says much the same but summarizes it in about 67% of the wordage.  The time-saving process, which essentially allows adopting an action by determining that there is no active opposition to it -- by asking if there is any objection, and proceeding if no objection is raised -- violates no one's rights; it has no downside.

_______

N.B. 1.   "Active opposition" might not be the best description.

2.  I'm getting a little tired of the vogue term "downside," but I'm finding it awfully useful.  The downside of being an irredeemably trendy person.

[Josh Martin]

That would be what makes sense, but RONR is silent on the issue? It's hard to imagine in all the years of RONR's use that this hasn't been an issue and dealt with, though if that's the case, I'm having a difficult time finding it.

 

To the best of my knowledge, RONR does not directly address this precise issue.

 

Our bylaws require each proposed amendment to be voted on separately. Can you clarify what is meant by "without objection statements" please?

 

As an example, let's say that you handle moving the language first, from Article VII, Section 4 to Article IX, Section 2 (or whatever). The other amendment says to amend "Article VII, Section 4 by inserting..." The chair announces "Without objection, "Article VII, Section 4" will be struck out and "Article IX, Section 2" will be inserted." If there is no objection (and I can't imagine why there would be) this amendment to the proposed bylaw amendment is adopted without a formal vote. Something similar could be done if they were handled in the reverse order. The amendment might have the full text of the section to be inserted. If text is added to that section before the amendment is considered, the chair could say "Without objection, the amendment previously adopted by the assembly will be added."

[srich42]

xxx

[Gary Novosielski]

xxx

Thank you for sharing.