Treatment of Competing Motions to Amend Gov. Document

[Guest David Pileggi]

Two motions to amend a section of our HOA's Covenants & Restricions submitted by interested homeowners will come before the membership at their annual meeting. They will be addressed in the chronological order they were submitted. The first proposal is more inclusive; the second more restrictive. Should the first proposal be ratified by the membership, what happens to the second, more restrictive proposal?

[Gary Novosielski]

It would make sense to offer the amendments in an order that would make sense.   If adopting the larger amendments makes the other amendment meaningless, reversing the order would be the best course.    

 

But whatever happens, it's not in order to move a meaningless amendment.  

 

If, for example, the language that the smaller amendment proposed to modify was no longer present in the bylaws, because the adoption of the larger amendment had changed or removed it, then moving the smaller amendment would not be in order, as it proposes to do something impossible.

 

By the way, they don't just get "addressed".  Someone has to move (and someone second) them before they are placed before the assembly.

[Dan Honemann]

It would make sense to offer the amendments in an order that would make sense.   If adopting the larger amendments makes the other amendment meaningless, reversing the order would be the best course.    

 

 

 Yep.

 

"If notice is given of several amendments which conflict so that all cannot be given effect, the chair should arrange them in a logical order, much as in the case of filling blanks (12), generally taking the least inclusive amendment first and the most inclusive last so that the last one adopted is given effect. Such arrangement of the amendments can be altered by the assembly by a majority vote without debate."  (RONR, 11th ed., pp. 593-594)

[Gary Novosielski]

Ah, there's the answer then:  "the chair should arrange them...."