mecharm Posted November 6, 2015 at 09:09 PM Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 at 09:09 PM Hi, Does the wording here seem unclear: Section 2. Any amendment of the constitution bylaws must be submitted in writing signed by two (2) members in good standing, presented to the Secretary to be read at the regular (general) meeting of the Circle, and must be read at three (3) consecutive meetings. All members must be notified of this intent of change of the bylaws in three consecutive monthly bulletins. After reading up on the isolated changes vs general revisions in RONR, it seems this section is missing the direction of how to handle a complete Bylaw revision by commttiee. I read up on the section in RONR of how it is up to the assembly to interpet it's own bylaws but only when not clearly stated or ambiguous.We may have gotten ourselves stuck in with it stated this way in our bylaws. To read a complete bylaw revision at 3 consecutive meetings would take up so much time in that the meeting would go into many hours. Our organanization's bylawys are out dated and this section is included in the revisions but if this is the grey area we need to clarify it's intend as an assembly, then we must do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted November 6, 2015 at 09:29 PM Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 at 09:29 PM Would it help to know that a revision is a form of amendment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 6, 2015 at 10:02 PM Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 at 10:02 PM Yes and no. To me it speaks of one revision not an entire rewrite. Are we going against our bylaws if only the letter of intent was read at these 3 meetings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mecharm Posted November 6, 2015 at 10:57 PM Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 at 10:57 PM The way this is written is it clear in the relation to both one amendment as well as an entire rewrite. I'm not sure if both scenarios needs to be explicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 6, 2015 at 11:27 PM Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 at 11:27 PM The way this is written is it clear in the relation to both one amendment as well as an entire rewrite. I'm not sure if both scenarios needs to be explicate.In my opinion, the rule clearly applies to any type of amendment, including a revision. If it is desired to exempt a revision from the requirement, this must be clearly stated. I would also note, however, that the rules could be suspended so that the revision is not read, although this would require unanimous consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted November 8, 2015 at 12:17 AM Report Share Posted November 8, 2015 at 12:17 AM Find someone who can read quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curiosulus Posted November 8, 2015 at 01:18 AM Report Share Posted November 8, 2015 at 01:18 AM In my opinion, the rule clearly applies to any type of amendment, including a revision. If it is desired to exempt a revision from the requirement, this must be clearly stated. I would also note, however, that the rules could be suspended so that the revision is not read, although this would require unanimous consent. Why would it require unanimous consent rather than a 2/3 vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 8, 2015 at 04:41 PM Report Share Posted November 8, 2015 at 04:41 PM Why would it require unanimous consent rather than a 2/3 vote? In my opinion, the rule protects the rights of individual members. A rule may not be suspended in the face of opposition from a minority at least as large as that which the rule is intended to protect. Even if I'm wrong about how this rule works, unanimous consent will certainly be required at the third meeting, because RONR clearly provides that an individual member has a right to have a motion be read when that motion is actually pending, even if the motion is printed and distributed in advance. (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 38-39) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Paulson Posted November 9, 2015 at 01:47 PM Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 at 01:47 PM If the bylaw revisions are so extensive that you have to read everything, you'd probably be best off amending the section that requires the 3 months of readings first. It could be as simple as changing to "read or distributed". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Paulson Posted November 10, 2015 at 01:58 PM Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 at 01:58 PM Ok, and one last question. If someone "forgets" to make that part of their report, is there a particular point of order or similar that could be called for to ensure it gets brought up? Or perhaps via amendment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 10, 2015 at 02:14 PM Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 at 02:14 PM Ok, and one last question. If someone "forgets" to make that part of their report, is there a particular point of order or similar that could be called for to ensure it gets brought up? Or perhaps via amendment?Part of what report?Was this post intended for a different thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Paulson Posted November 10, 2015 at 03:54 PM Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 at 03:54 PM Part of what report?Was this post intended for a different thread?Oops, yes. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.