grayduck Posted November 17, 2015 at 07:14 AM Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 at 07:14 AM Our Constitution was just changed. If, in a live meeting, a motion is made to make another change to the Constitution but the motion was written without reference to an updated Constitution (because it was posted late), and there is a conflict of intent with the new version of the Constitution, can that motion be denied as unconstitutional? Here's the timeline: 1. Constitution changed (new)2. Motion made without having a copy of the new Constitution in hand3. New Constitution made publicly available (late)4. Motion conflicts with the intent of an item in the new Constitution (mover didn't know) How would you handle this in the meeting? I guess you would motion to amend that conflict. But how much amending is too much? This person would need to propose changes to the new section in the new version of the Constitution to match the new motion. The new motion is highly contested and opponents are looking for a way to declare it unconstitutional because it conflicts with the intent of that recent change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted November 17, 2015 at 10:24 AM Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 at 10:24 AM It is not unconstitutional to amend the constitution, even if the amendment doesn't make much sense or is poorly drafted or conflicts with something in the present constitution. By definition, an amendment to the constitution changes something in it. However, if the chair believes that the wording of the motion is not clear, he may rule it out of order. That rule would likely apply if the proposed amendment references amending a document or constitutional provision that is no longer in existence. Such a ruling, of course, can be appealed to the assembly. You have a couple of other options. One is for the person who proposed the amendment to withdraw it and submit a new one, giving proper notice, etc. A second option is for the assembly to simply vote down the proposed amendment. A third option is to amend the proposed amendment to resolve any inconsistencies with the new constitution. However, you need to be careful here because any changes to the proposed amendment must be within the scope of the original proposal. If time permits, it seems to me to be best for the mover to withdraw his proposed amendment and then re-submit it in a manner that conforms to the new constitution. See pages 39, 343, 592 and 594 in RONR for more information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted November 17, 2015 at 11:23 AM Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 at 11:23 AM How far is "within the scope of the original proposal"? The current motion is to move elections and the AGM to September. Currently, we do everything in June. Last June there were allegations of blocking new members, letting others in, unfairly slowing down the verification process, etc. So we now have in our Constitution that no members can be accepted in June to ensure there is no such "tampering" again. The mover of the motion to move everything to September did not have the updated version of the Constitution with this bit about no new members in June. He meticulously caught every other reference to June and shifted it to September. If he had had a copy of the new Constitution, he surely would have caught this as well. As it stands now, however, if his motion passes, June will be a strange, stranded month of not accepting members, and September will be the same as it was before with a "problematic" verification process. As a result, the argument is that the motion to move everything to September conflicts with the intent of the no-new-members-in-June bit to do everything in June, so the motion is unconstitutional, regardless of not having had the most recent copy of the Constitution. Does it sound correct that the new motion conflicts with this intent? If the mover hasn't caught this section, my thinking is that it does. It also seems to me that making an amendment to catch this is beyond the scope of the current motion, right? I am thinking that your first option of withdraw and resubmit is best. This guy will be pissed. What do you think? It's all very convoluted in a very convoluted system. For those following my situation, I was just called "legendary" in a derogative sense because I have been catching and pointing out all the weakness of our process and how the application of RR is basically meaningless in so many ways. I have also been tweaking procedures that weren't clear to educate them and facilitate a "correction". Nothing inappropriate or unconstitutional, just a bit different. Hence, "legendary". Hahaha. A new committee to fix the Constitution is looking at it all of this right now. I also submitted to the Forum a proposal on how we could do everything similar to the E-meeting model discussed by Mr. Stackpole. I don't think they'll go for it. Too steep of a learning curve. But this forum here has been super beneficial to me. You're my support network and I really appreciate your help. Anyhow, back to the questions at hand. Intent conflict? Beyond the scope? Withdraw and resubmit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted November 17, 2015 at 11:31 AM Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 at 11:31 AM Or see what the assembly passes it. If it does, have him make another motion later to "clean up" the dates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gödel Fan Posted November 17, 2015 at 12:20 PM Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 at 12:20 PM >Does it sound correct that the new motion conflicts with this intent? It sounds irrelevant. A Constitutional amendment having untoward consequences, even if unforeseen by the maker, does not make it out of order. If I recall correctly, your job is something akin to ruling motions out of order before they are considered. This motion is not out of order, therefore, you should let the assembly consider it. People who dislike the consequences should vote no on it. A new proposal can be introduced later that takes into account all this June-September stuff. As far as withdrawing and resubmitting, you cannot unilaterally withdraw someone's motion. If it is before the assembly, it can be withdrawn only with the permission of the body; before being placed before the assembly, the maker can withdraw it - this doesn't seem to be what you're suggesting, though, since you say the maker will be pissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted November 17, 2015 at 12:28 PM Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 at 12:28 PM Woah! That was a great response! Exactly the stuff I was looking for being said at the same time that you reminded me of the limits of what I can or cannot do! Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted November 17, 2015 at 12:32 PM Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 at 12:32 PM Do you have a RONR reference for your first point about "untoward consequences" not making it out of order? Or is that just general practice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted November 17, 2015 at 12:46 PM Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 at 12:46 PM But now I'm a little bit confused between reading conflicts with "intent" and not worrying about "untoward consequences". In a conversation with Josh Martin, we talked about motions that are in conflict with the intent of something in the Constitution thus requiring them to be declared out of order. (If I understood it correctly). Here, however, it seems to be the opposite: let the consequences of "conflicts with intent" be dealt with after a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gödel Fan Posted November 17, 2015 at 01:04 PM Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 at 01:04 PM I'm not looking at your conversation with Mr. Martin (unless it's in this thread) but my very strong guess is that said conversation was about a motion to do something other than amend the Constitution. The difference is that what is proposed here is precisely an amendment to the Constitution; by definition it will conflict with the Constitution and with the intent of something in it. Suppose the Constitution said "the club will never, ever, ever, meet on a Tuesday." Clearly it would be out of order to move to set a special meeting for next Tuesday. The same conflict, in a sense, would be present if I moved to amend the Constitution to allow for meeting on a Tuesday, but would not be out of order. I don't have at the ready a reference for something having untoward consequences not being out of order - but you don't have one for such things being out of order ;-) In general, it is hard to give references for something not being prohibited - if you can't find a prohibition, it is permitted. Having undesirable consequences just isn't one of the things that makes motions out of order - it is one of the things, of course, that leads people to vote 'no' on motions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayduck Posted November 17, 2015 at 01:20 PM Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 at 01:20 PM You're right. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 19, 2015 at 06:25 PM Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 at 06:25 PM But now I'm a little bit confused between reading conflicts with "intent" and not worrying about "untoward consequences". In a conversation with Josh Martin, we talked about motions that are in conflict with the intent of something in the Constitution thus requiring them to be declared out of order. (If I understood it correctly). Here, however, it seems to be the opposite: let the consequences of "conflicts with intent" be dealt with after a vote. Ordinary main motions are out of order if they are in conflict with what the constitution says. (What it was intended to say is another matter.) But since the whole point of a constitutional amendment is to change what the constitution says, the question of conflict simply does not apply to constitutional amendments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.