Guest michael decker Posted January 19, 2015 at 09:15 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 at 09:15 PM At the general meeting at my fire company a vote was taken to change a bylaw that is un-changeable. I.e. "no proposal to alter, amend, expel or suspend this article shal be entertained. What is the proper procedure for bringing this up at this next meeting . I know that article 8 section 47 of rro states that this vote is null and void but is there a special procedure for addressing this to the board of directors and membership? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 19, 2015 at 09:20 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 at 09:20 PM At the general meeting at my fire company a vote was taken to change a bylaw that is un-changeable. I.e. "no proposal to alter, amend, expel or suspend this article shal be entertained. That's obviously not a proper quote of the passage, but why can't proper notice be given and a motion be made to strike the language, thereby removing the obstacle of amending the other passage? ** added the underlined part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 19, 2015 at 09:29 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 at 09:29 PM The full article is article XVIIIDissolution of the company To prevent the dissolution of this company , ten (10) voting members desirous of it's continuance may hold the property of this company in trust. No proposition to alter amend , expel or suspend this article shal be entertained Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 19, 2015 at 09:41 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 at 09:41 PM Since, apparently, no motion was made to strike the self-referential (and hence confusing) "No proposition to alter ..." provision, it remains in effect. Whatever motion was made to amend the other portion of Article XVII is simply null and void. Raise a point of order to this effect next meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 19, 2015 at 09:44 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 at 09:44 PM The amendment was not to remove the obstacle of amending the article .the change was just to the language of the article as to how many members are required. It's my understanding that if this article is to be changed they would first have had to vote to remove the restrictions of the article and then change the article language itself. However the only vote was to change language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest michael decker Posted January 19, 2015 at 09:50 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 at 09:50 PM Thank you for the info this has been very helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 20, 2015 at 12:26 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 12:26 PM That's obviously not a proper quote of the passage, but why can't proper notice be given and a motion be made to strike the language, thereby removing the obstacle of amending the other passage? ** added the underlined part The way it looks to me, the prohibition part includes itself. The entire two-sentence article is thereby set in stone. ("-Help me, Obi-Wan Seabold, you're my only hope.-") As OP Decker says, it is unchangeable. It is immutable. It is obstinacy embodied, it is adamantine, it is frozen in time forever, it is as the mind of a Republican. (Film at 11.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 20, 2015 at 01:31 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 01:31 PM The way it looks to me, the prohibition part includes itself. The entire two-sentence article is thereby set in stone. ("-Help me, Obi-Wan Seabold, you're my only hope.-") As OP Decker says, it is unchangeable. It is immutable. It is obstinacy embodied, it is adamantine, it is frozen in time forever, it is as the mind of a Republican. (Film at 11.) Nonsense - (except the bit about Republicants) If a (properly noticed, of course) motion/amendment is offered to strike out the "No proposition to alter..." clause, it could be considered improper since it sets out to do something in "conflict with the bylaws" - p. 251 (a). But, if nobody (promptly) raises the point of order and the strike out motion is adopted, then there is no problem, since there is nothing (now, after the adoption) in the bylaws that is in any way in conflict with the original motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 20, 2015 at 01:44 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 01:44 PM The way it looks to me, the prohibition part includes itself. The entire two-sentence article is thereby set in stone. ("-Help me, Obi-Wan Seabold, you're my only hope.-") As OP Decker says, it is unchangeable. It is immutable. It is obstinacy embodied, it is adamantine, it is frozen in time forever, it is as the mind of a Republican. (Film at 11.) In my view, Gary, the rule is procedural and if your heart can't handle the fact I think it might even be suspendable, comfort it by thinking it can be removed. No worries, this won't be on your RP test when you take in 20 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 20, 2015 at 01:49 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 01:49 PM In my view, Gary, the rule is procedural and if your heart can't handle the fact I think it might even be suspendable, comfort it by thinking it can be removed. No worries, this won't be on your RP test when you take in 20 years or so. If you can so breezily contemplate suspending or removing my heart, you cannibal, then we have nothing to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 20, 2015 at 02:34 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 02:34 PM In my view, Gary, the rule is procedural and if your heart can't handle the fact I think it might even be suspendable, comfort it by thinking it can be removed. No worries, this won't be on your RP test when you take in 20 years or so. If an organization's bylaws specifically provide that nothing in an article may be amended or suspended, wouldn't one reasonable interpretation be that it means what it says? The rule seems to be intended to prevent any change to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 20, 2015 at 03:14 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 03:14 PM If an organization's bylaws specifically provide that nothing in an article may be amended or suspended, wouldn't one reasonable interpretation be that it means what it says? The rule seems to be intended to prevent any change to it. The full article isarticle XVIIIDissolution of the companyTo prevent the dissolution of this company , ten (10) voting members desirous of it's continuance may hold the property of this company in trust. No proposition to alter amend , expel or suspend this article shal be entertained Answering Mr. Martin's question, I absolutely contend that the last sentence of the above quoted article can be stricken via the bylaw amendment process. then, the society can amend the sentence before that if they so choose. It is absolutely reasonable to contend the preceeding sentence can't be changed without striking the last sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted January 20, 2015 at 03:58 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 03:58 PM Answering Mr. Martin's question, I absolutely contend that the last sentence of the above quoted article can be stricken via the bylaw amendment process . . .I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Mervosh from a parliamentary perspective. Or maybe I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Martin . . . from a parliamentary perspective. I think this is akin to the old problem of self-referential statements, such as the famous "Liar Paradox". Or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 20, 2015 at 07:34 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 07:34 PM Answering Mr. Martin's question, I absolutely contend that the last sentence of the above quoted article can be stricken via the bylaw amendment process. then, the society can amend the sentence before that if they so choose. It is absolutely reasonable to contend the preceeding sentence can't be changed without striking the last sentence.I disagree. The rule clearly provides that the article cannot be amended. The society can't get around that by amending the rule, which is clearly prohibited. The specific rule in this section takes precedence over the general rules in the amendment process regarding amendments. Therefore, no amendment is in order which would amend this article, and this rule cannot be suspended, since that is also specified in the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted January 20, 2015 at 07:39 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 07:39 PM The specific rule in this section takes precedence over the general rules in the amendment process regarding amendments. Yeah, that's what's sticking in my craw. But then there's the principle that an assembly can't tie the hands of future assemblies and if this isn't hand-tying I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 20, 2015 at 07:41 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 07:41 PM Yeah, that's what's sticking in my craw. But then there's the principle that an assembly can't tie the hands of future assemblies and if this isn't hand-tying I don't know what is.The principle you are referring to is that an assembly cannot tie the hands of future assemblies except by adopting a rule at least on the level of a special rule of order. A rule in the bylaws is an even higher level rule, so it does not violate that principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted January 20, 2015 at 08:03 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 08:03 PM How about this: Is it impossible for this organization to ever dissolve since there will always be a part of the bylaws that can't be amended out of existence? I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle here but that's not to say it not a battle that's worth fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFS1970 Posted January 20, 2015 at 09:30 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 09:30 PM Having been a past parlimentarian in a fire company, this is close to my heart. There are all manner of bylaws used that seemed like a great idea 100 years ago, that now someone wants to change. It seems to me that this article can never be changed, which I thihnk we can all agree is a bad idea, everything should be changable, those changes may need to be difficult but possible. As inadvisable as such a rule is, is there a reason that the number needs to be changed? Is the goal to require 15 members or to require 5 members to hold the trust? It seems to me that if this article were invoked, that the fire comapny would cease to function and remain in trust until such time as those 10 trustees felt it could be returned to a functioning company. So you would not have to simply go down to 10 members, you would have to go down to 10 members unwilling or unable to respond to fires. As for the company never being able to disolve, I think that this article does allow for that, if there were no longer 10 members, as it takes 10 to form the trust. If the company got itself down to 9 members then it would be unable to form and maintain that trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 20, 2015 at 09:39 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 09:39 PM In spite of the hard-nosed gloom & doom of some of the posters on this topic, I contend that it is no problem to get rid of the "never change" rule -- see posting #8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 20, 2015 at 10:17 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 10:17 PM We respectfully request that posters refrain from expressing their political views in this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted January 20, 2015 at 10:23 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 10:23 PM It is obstinacy embodied, it is adamantine, it is frozen in time forever, it is as the mind of a Republican. Nonsense - (except the bit about Republicants) We respectfully request that posters refrain from expressing their political views in this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 20, 2015 at 10:50 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 10:50 PM . . . The rule clearly provides that the article cannot be amended. The society can't get around that by amending the rule, which is clearly prohibited. The specific rule in this section takes precedence over the general rules in the amendment process regarding amendments. Therefore, no amendment is in order which would amend this article, and this rule cannot be suspended, since that is also specified in the rule.I agree with Mr. Martin. I think the bylaw provision means what it says and says what it means and that no part of article VIII can be amended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 20, 2015 at 10:54 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 10:54 PM I don't believe this is a Gordian Knot problem, but acknowledging disagreements here, Richard and Josh, and anyone else who cares to chime in - Can this society adopt a revision to their bylaws sans the problematic sentence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted January 20, 2015 at 11:07 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 at 11:07 PM Can this society adopt a revision to their bylaws sans the problematic sentence? I think Mr. Martin is of the opinion that the problematic sentence can never be deleted. Because it says so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 21, 2015 at 12:04 AM Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 at 12:04 AM I don't believe this is a Gordian Knot problem, but acknowledging disagreements here, Richard and Josh, and anyone else who cares to chime in - Can this society adopt a revision to their bylaws sans the problematic sentence?Oh, the courts might let em do it. but I think RONR and the bylaws themselves do not permit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.