manAscending Posted January 22, 2015 at 01:52 PM Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 at 01:52 PM Our assembly will be considering a general revision to the bylaws. The committee responsible for creating a draft has done so, and, in accordance with our bylaws, proper notice to the membership has been given. I know that if we were making an isolated change, it would be out of order to entertain an amendment to the motion that would make the proposed change greater than that for which the notice has been given. I'm wondering if the limit to the scope of bylaw amendments also pertains to when a revision is being considered. RONR (10th ed.) states that ". . .in the case of revision, the assembly is not confined to consideration of only the points of change included in the proposed revision as submitted by the committee that has drafted it" (p. 575, ll. 8-11). Does this mean that the assembly can freely amend proposed changes without regard to the limit mentioned above? And yes, I know I should be referencing the most recent edition. The tenth is what I currently have in front of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted January 22, 2015 at 02:04 PM Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 at 02:04 PM A revision is treated like an entirely new set of bylaws that is fully open to amendment (RONR 11th ed., p. 593). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted January 22, 2015 at 02:11 PM Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 at 02:11 PM I'm wondering if the limit to the scope of bylaw amendments also pertains to when a revision is being considered. Giving notice of a revision effectively removes the "scope of the notice" restriction. Note that it's the notice that's important (and the magic "r-word"), regardless of how extensive or limited the changes end up being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manAscending Posted January 27, 2015 at 12:06 PM Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 at 12:06 PM A revision is treated like an entirely new set of bylaws that is fully open to amendment (RONR 11th ed., p. 593). When the committee presents the bylaw revision to the membership, I strongly anticipate we'll consider the document seriatim. Should the document provided be the old bylaws with proposed committee additions indicated with bold and proposed committee deletions indicated with strikethrough? Or should the document provided be the new bylaws, sans editing marks, that the committee wishes the assembly to adopt after having been considered seriatim? It seems to me that the former would make it easier for the assembly, since it would more easily indicate where changes from the original were proposed, and this would give people a sort of "benchmark" by which to personally judge the changes. On the other hand, RONR does state that a revision is "a new document . . . open to amendment." My concern is that members who are relatively unfamiliar with the old bylaws would be less able to understand the proposed changes, as there would be no context. Kind of like asking people to spot the twenty differences in picture B without providing picture A for reference. Is there a proper format for submitting a bylaw revision to the assembly for consideration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 27, 2015 at 12:53 PM Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 at 12:53 PM The bylaws that the committee moves be adopted as a substitute for the existing bylaws should be just the new set of bylaws, and not the existing bylaws with strike-outs and insertions. The latter might, and perhaps should, be provided in advance for informational purposes, but forms no part of the committee's motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.