Proper Notice and Motion to Amend

[Guest Phil Guest]

[Joshua Katz]

Without reviewing the RONR provisions, my thought is that notice (unlike the motion itself) need only, as the text says, "fairly inform." Since you have actual notice of the changes to be made, and hence of the motions that will be introduced, by looking at the existing text (or copying and pasting into Word and then running compare, or using a compare pdf program), I would think notice is sufficient.

Regarding explanation, I do not think explanation is required at all when giving notice. It is probably a smart thing to do, but failing to do so, or giving what some might consider insufficient explanation, does not have any effect on the validity of the notice.  Committees (or boards, it seems) making recommendations to the assembly do not need to argue for them - but they'll find it hard to get them approved if they do not.

When the motion is introduced at the meeting, it will need to be in a recognized form, unless the board is actually proposing a revision.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

I don't think it's a proper notice. RONR says the notice should be "formally worded" and gives an example using specific "strike" and "insert" language. "Here's the amended version; go look up the changes yourself" does strike me as fair at all.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, it's clear that the notice does not follow the best practice outlined in RONR.  I don't know if it's formally worded or whether it fairly informs the members of the exact changes and their effect if adopted.

But whether the notice is sufficient or not is not really something we can judge for you here, not having studied your bylaws or the exact wording of the notice.  That's something only your organization can determine.  Note that most of those quotations are "should"-rules, not "must"-rules.

If you or someone else believes that the notice is so deficient that the amendment cannot be properly considered, then when the matter comes up, you can raise a Point of Order that the proposed amendment is not in order since the required notice was insufficient.  Have your RONR citations with you, as well as any supporting rules in your bylaws. The chair will rule on the point of order, and state his reasons.   If you and one other member (mover, seconder) disagree with the ruling, you can move to Appeal from the Decision of the Chair, which puts the matter up for abbreviated debate and a vote.  Overturning the ruling requires majority in the negative, to the question "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?"

Refer to those sections in RONR and be prepared.  And cue your accomplice to shout "Second!" as soon as he hears the word "Appeal".  There's only a small window of time in which to act.

Edited May 18, 2018 at 01:15 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Guest Phil Guest said:

Since the final wording of the bylaw, as it will read if amended, has been provided, it seems to me this is sufficient notice and is a proper motion to amend the bylaws.

1 hour ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

I don't think it's a proper notice. RONR says the notice should be "formally worded" and gives an example using specific "strike" and "insert" language. "Here's the amended version; go look up the changes yourself" does strike me as fair at all.

We are told that the exact wording of the bylaw, as it will read if amended, has been provided. In my view, this satisfies the “formally worded” requirement. While the example specifies which words are to be struck out and which words are to be inserted, and while RONR notes that it is a good practice to list the current wording and the wording as amended, the text does not strictly require either of these things.

Edited May 18, 2018 at 01:32 AM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

12 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Since the final wording of the bylaw, as it will read if amended, has been provided, it seems to me this is sufficient notice and is a proper motion to amend the bylaws.

We are told that the exact wording of the bylaw, as it will read if amended, has been provided. In my view, this satisfies the “formally worded” requirement. While the example specifies which words are to be struck out and which words are to be inserted, and while RONR notes that it is a good practice to list the current wording and the wording as amended, the text does not strictly require either of these things.

First, I agree completely, in terms of notice.

There is something here that isn't mentioned, and can tie into Guest's comment.  The motion will have to be stated to become pending.  For instance, a singular amendment to strike out that article, for example Article XX, will have to be stated as, "I move to strike out Article XX."    If the notice included  Article XIX and a the current Article XXI renumbered as Article XX, it is clear that the amendment would remove the current Article XX, and there is sufficient notice to strike out Article XX. 

 

[Guest Zev]

How about a motion to recommit the motion with instructions to the committee to indicate all changes in detail, or something to that effect? The committee knew what those changes were.

[jstackpo]

In my opinion, if the committee had done a proper job, they would have indicated all the changes, perhaps (if it wasn't too confusing) via a "red-lined" ("track changes" in Microsoft-speak) document.  This works particularly for a General Revision.

Along with explanatory notes for why the "major" or most important changes were made.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

How about a motion to recommit the motion with instructions to the committee to indicate all changes in detail, or something to that effect? The committee knew what those changes were.

If the assembly wishes to refer the motion to amend the bylaws back to the board (which is where the changes came from), with instructions on the manner in which the proposed amendments shall be presented, it is free to do so.

2 hours ago, jstackpo said:

In my opinion, if the committee had done a proper job, they would have indicated all the changes, perhaps (if it wasn't too confusing) via a "red-lined" ("track changes" in Microsoft-speak) document.  This works particularly for a General Revision.

Along with explanatory notes for why the "major" or most important changes were made.

Yes, I agree that such actions would be preferable, but the board’s failure to do so does not, in my opinion, invalidate the notice. As I understand the facts, the board has included in the notice the exact wording of the bylaw, as it will read if amended. In my view, this is sufficient to meet the requirements that the amendment be “formally worded” and that it “fairly informs” the members of the proposed changes.

[Guest Phil Guest]

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

The question that interests me is question 4.  My answer is no, the notice requirement need not be the same as the motion requirement.  By definition, notice is something you can use over time.  At a meeting, motions may be made, debated, and voted on quickly.  There is no time to research a motion made on the floor without notice.  Furthermore, the rules for amendment seem crafted for a circumstance without a video display of the text as amended, without printed copies of motions and amendments, etc.  They are designed to allow you to follow the debate and amendment process without having any visual aid in front of you, and do not allow anything that is confusing.  Notice is a quite different circumstance, I think.

I'd rather not get myself in trouble with the others here by venturing opinions on the other questions 😉

[Josh Martin]

1.) Yes and no. RONR does not strictly require strike and insert notations for a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted.

There seems to be an assumption that a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted must be handled in exactly the same manner as the subsidiary motion to Amend. I see nothing in the section on Amend Something Previously Adopted which suggests this is the case. It seems to me that so long as it is clear what motion is being amended and the manner in which the motion will be amended, that is sufficient.

I do not think this motion is sufficient, however, because “a motion from a previous meeting” is not sufficient to let members know what motion is being amended. If the member said “The motion pertaining to scholarships adopted at the previous meeting,” (assuming there was only one motion pertaining to scholarships at the previous meeting), that would be sufficient. In the situation originally presented, however, it is clear that the bylaws are what is being amended.

If a member wishes to know what the wording of the previously adopted motion is, he can ask the chair, who can in turn refer the question to the Secretary if needed.

2.) No, the chair’s ruling is not final. The chair’s ruling may be appealed. I am somewhat concerned by this wording, however, as the question the assembly should be considering upon appeal is whether the chair is technically correct.

3.) No.

4.) As I have previously indicated, such notations are not required for a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, but even if they were, it does not necessarily follow that they must be included in the notice.