actor39 Posted July 17, 2015 at 02:52 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 02:52 AM A complete revision of the bylaws are scheduled to be presented to the society for approval. There are 56 sections to be approved, and the revision has definite opposition, but the amount of opposition has not yet been determined. We assume that the consideration of the revision as a single document would result in its defeat, but we are unsure, so the opposition (including me) is reluctant to have it considered this way, which may in fact not be possible. It may be that as soon as the proposal is put before the assembly, it must be considered seratim, so that would preclude any quick defeat of the proposal. I am wondering if a motion to state that the assembly does not wish to entertain any proposals to amend the bylaws at that meeting would be in order before the revision was presented, and would it prevent the presentation? And would that motion require a majority vote or could it be passed with only a 1/3 vote, since the bylaws call for a 2/3 vote for amendment? Or would some other procedure be better? It doesn't seem to be in order to try to postpone indefinitely a motion that has not yet been made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted July 17, 2015 at 03:54 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 03:54 AM A motion to amend the bylaws is a main motion, so why couldn't you try to postpone indefinitely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 17, 2015 at 10:07 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 10:07 AM The proposed revision of the bylaws should be considered seriatim (RONR, 11th ed., p. 593, ll. 33-35), but doing so does not necessarily "preclude any quick defeat of the proposal" since the Previous Question can be ordered on the entire document at any time while it is being considered seriatim. As you apparently recognize, if the chair suggests seriatim consideration of the revision and you think that time can be saved by acting on it as a whole, you can move that the revision be considered as a whole. Such a motion requires only a majority vote for its adoption. Any motion to prevent consideration of the revision altogether, or to preclude any amendments to it, will require a two-thirds vote for adoption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 17, 2015 at 01:34 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 01:34 PM A motion to amend the bylaws is a main motion, so why couldn't you try to postpone indefinitely?Apparently, the goal is to ensure that the revision is not considered at all. Postpone Indefinitely wouldn't be in order until the revision is pending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted July 17, 2015 at 01:37 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 01:37 PM Apparently, the goal is to ensure that the revision is not considered at all. Postpone Indefinitely wouldn't be in order until the revision is pending.Then, what would you suggest? Objection to consideration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 17, 2015 at 01:45 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 01:45 PM Then, what would you suggest? Objection to consideration?No, because an amendment to the bylaws is an incidental main motion, so OTC is not in order.The proper motion would be to adopt a rule of order for the meeting prohibiting the consideration of the revision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 17, 2015 at 01:56 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 01:56 PM If the bylaw (and RONR) amendment process was properly followed, I doubt (without knowing those bylaws, obviously) that there is any way to "prevent" the package of amendments from coming up, and being placed before the assembly - i.e. pending. Unless you take Josh's suggestion - which will require giving notice ahead of (if there is time) and a 2/3 vote. Your other recourse(s) might be to move the previous question immediately and then (presumably) defeat the amendment proposal(s), send it to a committee, or just plain postpone consideration, or move to adjourn. (Don't even think of "table" or we will all come down hard on you!!) These give you only a temporary respite because the amendments could be offered again, if defeated, or would come up automatically next meeting, or when the committee reported back. Maybe some politics in the meantime will help. Or face it: you are probably going to have to consider those amendments someday, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 17, 2015 at 01:57 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 01:57 PM Unless you take Josh's suggestion - which will require giving notice ahead of (if there is time) and a 2/3 vote.Notice isn't required to adopt a rule of order for a single meeting (but a 2/3 vote certainly is).I hadn't considered simply adjourning the meeting. If there's no business to consider after the revision, that may be the best option - it would be a way to prevent consideration with only a majority vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 17, 2015 at 02:02 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 02:02 PM Notice not needed only if you can garner a majority of the entire membership -- that is usually quite unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 17, 2015 at 02:35 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 02:35 PM I hadn't considered simply adjourning the meeting. If there's no business to consider after the revision, that may be the best option - it would be a way to prevent consideration with only a majority vote. Which raises a question: if the meeting adjourns BEFORE the bylaw amendments are moved, will the (presumably required and previously given) notice of bylaw amendments still be valid at the next meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 17, 2015 at 06:03 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 06:03 PM Notice not needed only if you can garner a majority of the entire membership -- that is usually quite unlikely.A motion to adopt a rule of order for a single meeting requires only a 2/3 vote without notice.Which raises a question: if the meeting adjourns BEFORE the bylaw amendments are moved, will the (presumably required and previously given) notice of bylaw amendments still be valid at the next meeting?If the next meeting is within a quarterly interval, I believe the revision would become Unfinished Business for that meeting, since when notice is given for an amendment to the bylaws, it becomes a general order. If the next meeting is not within a quarterly interval, it would be necessary to give a new notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 17, 2015 at 06:34 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 06:34 PM A motion to adopt a rule of order for a single meeting requires only a 2/3 vote without notice. Whence that assertion? Certainly not p. 17, lines 28-30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 17, 2015 at 07:23 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 07:23 PM Whence that assertion? Certainly not p. 17, lines 28-30. Page 620, lines 4-11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 17, 2015 at 08:08 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 08:08 PM But that page is talking about Rules of Order for a convention. I don't see that they create an exception to a notice requirement for a regular meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted July 17, 2015 at 08:18 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 08:18 PM A "two-thirds vote is required to adopt any motion that: (a) suspends or modifies a rule of order previously adopted; ( prevents the introduction of a question for consideration. . ." (RONR 11th ed., p. 401, ll. 21-24) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted July 17, 2015 at 08:39 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 08:39 PM A "two-thirds vote is required to adopt any motion that: (a) suspends or modifies a rule of order previously adopted; ( prevents the introduction of a question for consideration. . ." (RONR 11th ed., p. 401, ll. 21-24) It's not clear to me that those situations are comparable to the initial adoption of a rule of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 17, 2015 at 09:16 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 09:16 PM It's not clear to me that those situations are comparable to the initial adoption of a rule of order. Well, a "modification" of an existing SRO would surely be an amendment which is explicitly covered on p. 17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 17, 2015 at 09:24 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 at 09:24 PM The sentence on page 620, to which reference has been made, draws a very clear distinction between a rule "which, in an ordinary local society or assembly, would need a two-thirds vote to be placed in effect for the duration of a meeting or session" and one which requires "adoption as a special rule of order to continue in force from session to session ...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 18, 2015 at 12:17 AM Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 at 12:17 AM Well.... OK, but it is surely not a good thing to make a clear and unambiguous statement of the rule on page 17 and then hide a significant qualification of that rule six-hundred and three pages away, in a chapter dealing with a quite different kind of meeting and with awkward syntax to boot. Is there any (other) place where it is stated that a "single meeting special rule of order" can be adopted (still 2/3, of course) without notice? I sure don't think so. Looks like the 12th Ed. team has something else on its to-do list. There is not the slightest hint on p. 17 that the adoption rules differ for special rules of order for a single meeting/session vs. multiple meeting/sessions . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted July 18, 2015 at 06:34 AM Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 at 06:34 AM Apparently, what you're referring to as a "single meeting special rule of order" is just called a "rule". Special rules of order are enduring. I guess that's what makes 'em special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 18, 2015 at 07:25 AM Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 at 07:25 AM Apparently, what you're referring to as a "single meeting special rule of order" is just called a "rule". Special rules of order are enduring. I guess that's what makes 'em special. Are you (and everybody else but me, it seems) saying that an assembly can adopt a rule of order (not found in their adopted authority) that "endures" for that one meeting (only) without a notice? And that one-meeting rule is not called "special", even though it is certainly unique for that group? While the very same rule becomes a "special rule" (requiring notice) if it is to "endure" for subsequent meeting/sessions? It sure would be nice if the book made this "rule" vs. "special rule" distinction up front on pp. 15ff. It isn't until we reach p. 620 that there is even a whiff of that assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 18, 2015 at 10:30 AM Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 at 10:30 AM I think it should be obvious that the kinds (or classes) of rules which are discussed in Section 2 of RONR are rules which have, and are intended to have, continuing force and effect, and not rules which the members present at any particular session may place in effect for the duration of their current session only. Another example of the distinction between a special rule of order and one which is adopted for a single session is found on page 390. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted July 18, 2015 at 11:01 AM Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 at 11:01 AM Or, perhaps by analogy, the top of p. 192. And see "Meeting Standing Rules," robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/16753-meeting-standing-rules/#entry84096 , cf. "Fred." (Come to think of it, John, it looks as if you've changed your mind from the position you took then. Did you?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 18, 2015 at 11:10 AM Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 at 11:10 AM For Dan: OK -- can I go fishing now? For Nancy: Whitman said it for me..... Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.