ASH

[Guest ASH]

Our By-Laws committee proposed several amendments to our organizations by-laws.  Discussion over the proposed changes was tabled at the first meeting they were discussed at.  The committee made some changes, but at the next meeting, there was not enough time to discuss and vote on the by-laws so the vote has been postponed to the next meeting.  However, the committee really just wants this voted on and will not make further changes.  So, the current version will be what is voted on (I assume some discussion will precede it, but no changes will be entertained).  One change is somewhat controversial and may create some heated discussion (I posted on this before, adding the IPP to the exec board), other changes created no discussion.  To me, they are kind of reneging on their responsibilities to see this work through to the end (though I totally understand and sympathize with their frustrations).  Can a committee just stop working even if their work is not really done?

[Chris Harrison]

I suppose they can if the Membership lets them get away with it.  If they reported back before completing the work entrusted to them by the bylaws or instructions from the Membership the matter should be re-committed to them with firm instructions they do it right this time (or a new Committee can be formed who will hopefully perform their duties).  Even if there were no specific instruction as to what they need to do so they decided their work was done even though they were punting (or dropping the ball depending on the circumstances) the Membership can still re-commit the matter to them or a new committee.

[Guest Edgar]

Can a committee just stop working even if their work is not really done?

 

If this is a special committee then its work is done once it submits its final report (whether the organization likes the report or not).

 

If this is a standing committee then the organization can instruct it to try again. Or replace some of all of the committee members.

 

But I don't think you can expect any committee to come up with something everyone agrees on. That's what voting is for.

[Bruce Lages]

Our By-Laws committee proposed several amendments to our organizations by-laws.  Discussion over the proposed changes was tabled at the first meeting they were discussed at.  The committee made some changes,

 

It sounds like this whole process started out on the wrong foot here. If the committee had formally presented its proposed amendments to the assembly (as seems to be the case from these statements), then while postponing (not 'tabling') them was in order, it was not in order for the committee to go back and make changes to them. Once the amendments are made and stated by the chair, they are the property of the assembly. The assembly could amend them to their liking, postpone them to the next meeting, or send them back to the committee, but they are no longer within the control of the committee.

 

This is all water under the bridge now, but you should remember this for next time. Once the proposal(s) are presented to the assembly, it's the assembly that decides what to do with them.

[Guest ASH]

All very helpful,  Thanks.  This is a special committee, so I guess we accept their report and go from there.  The change was actually made after the initial discussion was postponed. The addition was voted on in an executive committee meeting and communicated to the by law committee, who incorporated it in the subsequent revision.  I'm not sure why this happened,as our by laws do not give the executive committee any power over the by laws.  If I am understanding this correctly, the step we missed was not understanding that time essentially stood still once the by laws were presented and a discussion and vote was postponed.  Based on what Bruce says above, I wonder if we could just go back to the original amendments and vote on that document.

[Gary Novosielski]

First, you didn't "table" the motion, you just postponed it.  So when you take it up the following month, it is in exactly the same condition as when it was postponed.  The committee cannot reach out and change it once it is before the assembly.    If the assembly wanted the committee to work on it more, they could have used a motion to recommit (or refer again) to the committee.  If they did not do that, then the proper thing to do is to ignore anything the executive committee and bylaws committee think they did in the meantime.
 

But when it comes back for discussion, members have a right to further amend it (within the scope of the previous notice).  Where do you imagine this power comes from to say that changes "will not be entertained"?  Is there something in your bylaws that gives you such dictatorial power?

[Guest ASH]

It's not me, its the bylaws committee that does not want to make further changes.  Nothing gives them that power, but I think they are a frustrated with the process and the delay.  They want an up or down vote on the most recent version of the bylaws.  Their feeling is that if people don't like the changes, they can vote them down and another bylaw committee can take the changes up at a later date.

[Josh Martin]

It's not me, its the bylaws committee that does not want to make further changes.  Nothing gives them that power, but I think they are a frustrated with the process and the delay.  They want an up or down vote on the most recent version of the bylaws.  Their feeling is that if people don't like the changes, they can vote them down and another bylaw committee can take the changes up at a later date.

 

The bylaws committee is incorrect. That's certainly one option, but the members are also free to refer the changes back to the bylaws committee (preferably replacing the current members with members who are willing to do their job), or to amend the changes themselves, so long as such amendments are within the scope of notice.