change constitution

[Guest 44125@msn.com]

to change our constitution, the changes are to be read at three cosecutive meetings. A vote was taken at one meeting to not read the changes . is this ok?

[Josh Martin]

to change our constitution, the changes are to be read at three cosecutive meetings. A vote was taken at one meeting to not read the changes . is this ok?

 

It's ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws. RONR does not require that "the changes are to be read at three consecutive meetings." See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

 

I will say that when RONR requires a document to be read, the rules may be suspended by unanimous consent to omit the reading. Additionally, rules in the nature of rules of order in the bylaws may be suspended. So I'd lean toward "yes, if the vote to not read the changes was unanimous."

[David A Foulkes]

It's ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws. RONR does not require that "the changes are to be read at three consecutive meetings." See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

 

I will say that when RONR requires a document to be read, the rules may be suspended by unanimous consent to omit the reading. Additionally, rules in the nature of rules of order in the bylaws may be suspended. So I'd lean toward "yes, if the vote to not read the changes was unanimous."

 

But - the motion to suspend the rules (adopted at meeting #1) that require a 2nd and 3rd reading (at the 2nd and 3rd meetings) doesn't hold force after meeting #1 is adjourned, right?  That is, when meeting #2 (and #3) is called to order, the rules would need to be suspended again to omit the 2nd (and 3rd) readings, right?

[Josh Martin]

But - the motion to suspend the rules (adopted at meeting #1) that require a 2nd and 3rd reading (at the 2nd and 3rd meetings) doesn't hold force after meeting #1 is adjourned, right?  That is, when meeting #2 (and #3) is called to order, the rules would need to be suspended again to omit the 2nd (and 3rd) readings, right?

 

Yes, my understanding was that the motion was to Suspend the Rules so that the amendment was not read at a single meeting. If it was desired to omit all of the readings, this would require unanimous consent at all three meetings. Also, this is to omit the reading only.

 

It would likely not be in order to say, Suspend the Rules so as to vote on the amendments after the first or second reading instead of after the third reading (unless the rule so provides), as the intent of such a rule is presumably to protect absentees.