Amending Bylaws Seriatim

[Guest Nancy N.]

.. .And how about the notion that this motion may have been made 8 years ago?

 

Oh yes, that seems quite unlikely. I suspect the eight years is in reference to the time the revision has spent in committees and such, and as you note in Post #17, has nothing to do with the current situation.

 

How much you wanna bet that (at least, as of two hours ago) this was the only motion that's ever been made on the subject?

[Josh Martin]

So, given the conflicts, it seems to me that figuring out what they actually did is less a question of parliamentary acumen so much as Pin The Tail On The Donkey.  -- unless anything in the mess absolutely pins it down one way or another, which I don't see.  I think if it's better for this group to consider their stack of paper as a unified document if they want to,  and if they want to consider it as a pile (or "bunch," as some would sloppily call it) of independent bylaw amendment proposals, also fine.  I'd lean towards voting that they are unattached, since that would make it easier for them to deal with their contentious proposals; though I concur with Mr. Honemann that there's considerable weight to the view that it walks like a revision and quacks like a revision.  But it's more like a platypus.

 

It would be perfectly easy to deal with this if it was a revision as well, as the members could then just amend it to say whatever they wanted it to say.

 

The mess occurs if the assembly handles them as a "unified document" that is somehow not a revision, despite all appearances to the contrary.

[Guest Carl]

Lady and gentlemen, I will be happy to drop one Guest if it appears again and I totally cannot stand the spam puzzles. I particularly dred doing it on my iPad now. The meeting went 41/2 hrs and was continued until the 31st when we have one hour to finish because that is when the next general membership meeting begins.

We only have two articles left. One is the infamous Standing Rules article. It's going to be moved to be struck. So we will all have to wait until the end of this series to find out that resolution.

The chair elaborated that the 25 day mailed bylaw document with the date of the special meeting and the the meeting itself is the motion to move.

After the final article I will attempt to pull out a few sections of three different articles for the purpose of leaving them in original form. We will then do the final 2/3 vote on the entire remainder of the document at once. At the general meeting that follows, I will move to have a committee formed to rewrite those problematic sections.

Any advice on how to enable the plan? Like a motion to reconsider those few sections and move to strike or reject the amendments of those parts, leaving the original document in those sections? And what is proper at the general to get the committee thing going to rewrite?

Lastly for now, I will leave the treat of something we have not discussed. The section is Proxies. We are a deliberative body of 106 homes any of whom can have an unlimited number of proxies (one vote per dwelling). The proxy amendment proposed that we limit the proxies to one per home. The discussion was impassioned with words; democracy, abuse of use, responsibility to attend meeting, etc. Before we could vote a motion was made to amend the limit to three per. Just before that vote it was amended to five. Three would have passed but five passed 35 to 34. About 30 of the votes were proxies. FYI, I believe in no proxies but because of our out of town owners I .supported the limit of one. I think this limit will kill the whole thing. Please advise on above. Thank you

[Josh Martin]

The chair elaborated that the 25 day mailed bylaw document with the date of the special meeting and the the meeting itself is the motion to move.

 

The chair is mistaken on this point. In the future, a member still needs to actually make a motion.

 

Any advice on how to enable the plan? Like a motion to reconsider those few sections and move to strike or reject the amendments of those parts, leaving the original document in those sections? And what is proper at the general to get the committee thing going to rewrite?

 

You don't reconsider sections, since no vote was taken on them. After all sections are considered, however, the entire document is then open to debate and amendment. So you could then offer a motion to strike the amendments and insert the original language.

 

After the entire revision is completed, I would then offer a motion instructing the appropriate committee to investigate changes to those sections. Since this is still related to the revision, I believe it would be in order even although this is a special meeting to consider the revision.

 

Lastly for now, I will leave the treat of something we have not discussed. The section is Proxies. We are a deliberative body of 106 homes any of whom can have an unlimited number of proxies (one vote per dwelling). The proxy amendment proposed that we limit the proxies to one per home. The discussion was impassioned with words; democracy, abuse of use, responsibility to attend meeting, etc. Before we could vote a motion was made to amend the limit to three per. Just before that vote it was amended to five. Three would have passed but five passed 35 to 34. About 30 of the votes were proxies. FYI, I believe in no proxies but because of our out of town owners I .supported the limit of one. I think this limit will kill the whole thing. Please advise on above. Thank you

 

RONR's advice is not to have proxies at all. So I suppose limited proxies is better than unlimited proxies.

 

If you believe, however, that such a limit will doom the entire revision, perhaps it is best revisit this debate another day, introducing it as a single amendment instead of as a part of a revision. A motion to Reconsider could be used for this issue, since a vote was taken on it.

[Edgar Guest]

RONR's advice is not to have proxies at all. So I suppose limited proxies is better than unlimited proxies.

 

I'm not sure I'd make that supposition.