Interpreting "ratification"

[Guest Henry Jamerson]

I am proposing some amendments to the local bylaws of my organization. In our local bylaws, it states: "All amendments to these Bylaws must be submitted in writing to the Executive Committee for ratification before being read at a chapter meeting. All proposed Bylaws must include the Article and Section numbers being affected before it can be voted as a change."

 

I am a little confused on how the word "ratification" is being used. Does the Executive Committee have to approve of the changes I want to make before the rest of the organization votes, or does the Executive Committee have to approve that I want to make a change and then the rest of the organization votes?

 

So for example, let's say a bylaw states that showing up 15 minutes late to an event counts as an absence. If I wanted to propose that we change 15 minutes to 20 minutes...

 

(a) does the Executive Committee have to vote YES to approve that 15 to 20 minutes is a good change and the rest of the organization can vote (the Executive Committee would then essentially vote again independently at the time of the vote to the whole organization)?

( does the Executive Committee have to vote that, YES, Henry (me) is allowed to propose this change for discussion and approval from the entire organization?

 

I feel that any amendment should be brought to the entire organization for discussion and approval regardless if the Executive Committee agrees with it or not; however, I am unaware as to how this works and what ratification entirely means in accordance with Robert's Rules.

 

Thank you!

 

[Richard Brown]

Unfortunately, it will be up to your organization itself to determine what that bylaw provision means. 

[Josh Martin]

I am a little confused on how the word "ratification" is being used.

Me too.

I am a little confused on how the word "ratification" is being used. Does the Executive Committee have to approve of the changes I want to make before the rest of the organization votes, or does the Executive Committee have to approve that I want to make a change and then the rest of the organization votes?

So for example, let's say a bylaw states that showing up 15 minutes late to an event counts as an absence. If I wanted to propose that we change 15 minutes to 20 minutes...

(a) does the Executive Committee have to vote YES to approve that 15 to 20 minutes is a good change and the rest of the organization can vote (the Executive Committee would then essentially vote again independently at the time of the vote to the whole organization)?

( does the Executive Committee have to vote that, YES, Henry (me) is allowed to propose this change for discussion and approval from the entire organization?

I feel that any amendment should be brought to the entire organization for discussion and approval regardless if the Executive Committee agrees with it or not; however, I am unaware as to how this works and what ratification entirely means in accordance with Robert's Rules.

"Ratification" means something different in Robert's Rules then whatever it means in your organization's bylaws. It refers to an action which requires additional approval before it becomes final, such as when a board or officers act beyond their authority, members take action at an inquorate meeting, or a national organization must ratify amendments of subordinate units (or vice versa).

I'm not entirely certain what it means in your bylaws (see RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation), but if you feel "that any amendment should be brought to the entire organization for discussion and approval regardless if the Executive Committee agrees with it or not," I recommend getting rid of it. Of course, that might require electing some new board members.

[Edgar Guest]

Does the Executive Committee have to approve of the changes I want to make before the rest of the organization votes . . . ?

 

That would be my interpretation. I think you can safely substitute "approval" for "ratification".