YC2017 Posted April 26, 2017 at 02:50 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 at 02:50 PM Our non-profit brought a motion for a vote to change our by-laws. During the decision portion, an amendment was made then we proceeded to vote on the by-law change. The by-law vote carried by over 2/3 vote as required by our by-laws. If the by-laws were changed as recommended by the amendment, was this a legal vote or not. If not, the by-law change would need to be re-voted? For more information on the one amendment, one group wanted to add a new standing committee to the by-laws. It was stated that the new committee with certain members would be added to the by-laws (and it was). It has been stated that we should NOT have voted until the amended document was represented. This is the new standing committee to be amended to the by-laws: “Section 8 -- Missions Committee - The missions committee shall consist of the chairman of deacons, chairperson of the finance committee, the ladies’ organization director, and men’ organization director.” Just FYI - the duties of the committee are described in their job description. Can you clarify and point me to the reference in Roberts Rule of Order. How would we proceed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted April 26, 2017 at 03:47 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 at 03:47 PM If the motion stated the exact words to be added, and it was adopted according to the notice and vote requirements for amending the bylaws, then it is now in effect. There is no requirement in RONR to present the whole amended document first. Ask the person making this claim to show you the rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted April 26, 2017 at 04:30 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 at 04:30 PM If I understand correctly, there was a motion to amend the bylaws, which was amended while pending, and then adopted. The issue with this is, first, is noticed required in your amendment process, and second, if so, was the amendment within the scope of notice? I'm unsure exactly what the complaint was (if it didn't have to do with scope of notice), but if it was that the chair should have stated the motion as amended before moving to a vote, then it is correct, but it is too late to raise a point of order on those grounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted April 26, 2017 at 05:00 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 at 05:00 PM Based on the original post, I'm not sure what happened. It appears that there was an amendment to the bylaws was properly before the assembly and that the assembly amended that proposal and then adopted the proposal as amended. But, I'm far from sure and I hope YC2017 will clarify for us exactly what happened. Such an amendment would be in order, provided it was within the scope of notice of the original proposed bylaw amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YC2017 Posted April 26, 2017 at 06:09 PM Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 at 06:09 PM Thank you all for your replies. For further clarification as requested. Here's the history and the process through the vote....We had a team that was tasked to update the by-laws. We updated the by-laws and gave the required notification to the assembly as to when a vote would be taken. During the discussion portion before the vote was called for the by-laws, one individual asked for the by-laws to be amended to add the Missions Committee. It was agreed that the standing Missions Committee would be added to the by-laws document. No further discussion on any issues and then the moderator called for a vote. The by-laws with the one amendment passed with over the 2/3 requirement. Hope this helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted April 26, 2017 at 08:55 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 at 08:55 PM Does "update" mean that you presented an entirely new set of bylaws to replace the old ones? If so, amendments are in order while it is being considered, since notice of a revision is notice that everything may change. If not, and you gave notice of the specific changes you wished to make, it appears to me to be unlikely that the addition of the Missions Committee would be within the scope of notice. That said, it sounds like the question posed is whether, after the amendment was made, the now-amended motion should have been presented to the assembly. It is the chair's obligation to make sure the assembly knows what it is voting on. It is also the chair's job to state the motion, as amended, prior to the vote. However, if that was not done, and no timely objection was raised, it is now too late to raise a point of order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YC2017 Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:02 PM Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:02 PM Thank you all for your replies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YC2017 Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:27 PM Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 at 10:27 PM 1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said: Does "update" mean that you presented an entirely new set of bylaws to replace the old ones? If so, amendments are in order while it is being considered, since notice of a revision is notice that everything may change. If not, and you gave notice of the specific changes you wished to make, it appears to me to be unlikely that the addition of the Missions Committee would be within the scope of notice. That said, it sounds like the question posed is whether, after the amendment was made, the now-amended motion should have been presented to the assembly. It is the chair's obligation to make sure the assembly knows what it is voting on. It is also the chair's job to state the motion, as amended, prior to the vote. However, if that was not done, and no timely objection was raised, it is now too late to raise a point of order. Joshua, to answer your question about "update". No, it was not an entirely new set of bylaws just changes throughout. We did give our voters a copy of the original bylaws as well as another copy with highlighted changes. So I'm understanding that the verbal amendment would not be within the scope of notice; however, I believe I understand that it is now too late to raise a point of order. Is my understanding correct? What reference can I use from RROO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted April 26, 2017 at 11:09 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 at 11:09 PM 42 minutes ago, YC2017 said: Joshua, to answer your question about "update". No, it was not an entirely new set of bylaws just changes throughout. We did give our voters a copy of the original bylaws as well as another copy with highlighted changes. So I'm understanding that the verbal amendment would not be within the scope of notice; however, I believe I understand that it is now too late to raise a point of order. Is my understanding correct? What reference can I use from RROO? No. A violation of the scope of notice rule would be a very serious issue and a Point of Order would still be timely. I'm not sure, however, that this is the case. It seems as though a single vote was taken on the revised set of bylaws in their entirety. If so, that sounds more like a general revision than a series of individual amendments. When a general revision is proposed, any changes are within the scope of notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted April 27, 2017 at 01:19 AM Report Share Posted April 27, 2017 at 01:19 AM 7 hours ago, YC2017 said: We updated the by-laws and gave the required notification to the assembly as to when a vote would be taken. What exactly did the notice say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YC2017 Posted April 27, 2017 at 02:01 AM Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2017 at 02:01 AM It was a general verbal announcement that we would hold a meeting to vote on revised by-laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted April 27, 2017 at 02:56 AM Report Share Posted April 27, 2017 at 02:56 AM 52 minutes ago, YC2017 said: It was a general verbal announcement that we would hold a meeting to vote on revised by-laws. Well, revised bylaws sounds like a revision, but I don't think I'm in a position to deal with the factual question. If, in fact, the motion was amended beyond scope of notice, then no, it would not be too late to raise a point of order. I mentioned timeliness only for the more minor question of the chair not stating the question fully before the vote. For amending the bylaws outside the scope of notice, a continuing breach would exist, and a point of order could be raised at any time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted April 27, 2017 at 11:47 AM Report Share Posted April 27, 2017 at 11:47 AM Agreeing for the most part with both Mr. Martin and Mr. Katz, this sounds more like a bylaws revision rather than a few isolated bylaw amendments. I'm not sure yc2017 completely understands the distinction. With individual (or several) bylaw amendments, any proposed amendments to those amendments must be within the scope of notice of the original proposals. But with a bylaws revision, there is no scope of notice requirement/limitation. Anything goes. The range of amendments to the proposed revised bylaws is wide open. That is because a whole new set of bylaws is being proposed much like when a new society is being organized. Whether this was a revision with the adoption of a new set of bylaws or just a few isolated amendments is a factual determination that only the society itself can make. The fact that a complete copy of both the existing bylaws and the proposed bylaws was furnished to the membership makes me think it was a general revision, but that is a determination that only the society can make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts