Withdrawing a proposed Constitution and By Law Change

[Guest Dianne]

At a regular meeting of an organization a change to the Constitution and Bylaws. Before the meeting today, the 4 signers of the proposed change withdrew it a few days ago. It was our understanding that the membership should have voted yea or nay whether to accept the withdrawal and they actually could have voted no and discussed it and voted on the proposal. The parliamentarian would not allow this and said it was dead once withdrawn. What is the correct ruling?

[jstackpo]

Neither was completely correct.

 

Since, presumably, nobody had actually moved the change at the meeting (all that had happened was that a notice of the change was made, again presumably), if nobody chose to actually make a motion to adopt the changes then the changes were not before the assembly.  Which, presuming yet again, is what the original gang of four had in mind.  If nobody made the motion there would be no opportunity for discussion and a vote.

 

HOWEVER, since a notice had been given, any member could have moved the change (even if the original four didn't like that)  --  p.307.  So the parliamentarian was wrong too.

 

Evidently that didn't happen, so the whole business just goes away.

[Guest Dianne]

A member did attempt to ask that there be discussion on the matter since some felt that the proposal was needed. However, the President simply  indicated that the change was not longer on the table and dead.

[Guest Dianne]

 The proposed change was submitted in writing and accepted and read to the membership and they were advised that voting would take place at the next meeting. Would not the submission of the proposed change in writing be considered a motion?

[jstackpo]

In post #3 the president would have been wrong IF the person wanting a "discussion" had actually moved the bylaw change. 

 

In #4, can't tell for sure but probably the answer is "No" since this submission would amount to giving notice, but not to making the motion itself.   The rules for making amendments as spelled out in your bylaws could make a difference, too.

 

Also I am puzzled:  #3 and #4 seem to be contradictory.  If the issue was "dead" (per #3) how could it be "accepted and read", per #4?

 

Afraid I can sort things out for you at this point.

[Bruce Lages]

Possibly, but that would depend on your organization's interpretation of your procedure for submitting amendments to the constitution and bylaws. In RONR, a motion to amend is placed before the assembly by being moved, seconded, and then stated by the chair. Before that takes place, the maker of the motion may withdraw his motion without the consent of the assembly.

 

Normally, submitting a motion in writing and reading it (or having it read), but not actually moving it, would constitute giving advance notice of the intent to make the motion at the next meeting. as Dr. Stackpole has indicated. But I think it will be up to your organization to decide whether the process of "submitted in writing and accepted and read to the membership" is considered as making the motion according to the amendment procedure described in your constitution and/or bylaws. See pp. 588-591 of RONR, 11th ed. for some principles of interpretation.

[Thomas Ralph]

A member did attempt to ask that there be discussion on the matter since some felt that the proposal was needed. However, the President simply  indicated that the change was not longer on the table and dead.

While this was improper, the failure of anyone to make a Point of Order at the time means it's now too late to do anything about it.

The motion can be made again at the next meeting, subject to any notice requirements there may be.