CAN YOU AMEND A BYLAW BY A SIMPLE MOTION (bypassing the mandated amendment procedure)

[Guest YORAM]

Our bylaws specify how to amend a bylaw.

Our parliamentarian composed several changes to a certain bylaw, almost half a page worth, single spaced, and sprung them on the general membership meeting without a prior notice, because these are mere "clarifications" and you do not need to go through the bothersome amending route if you just want to "clarify".

As an example, members of our association of journalists, need to show, once a year, proof of published journalistic work, to maintain active status.

The bylaw says, for example:

.....continued    active    membership    shall    be    limited    to    members    who    meet    the    following    qualifications    during    the    July    scrutiny    of    membership:      

 (a) Submit    six    original    clippings    (or    six    pdf    format    printouts    of    articles    or    photographs    from    online-only    publications)    from    the    preceding    twelve    months    (July    1    through    June    30);  

and so on.

Here is an example of a "clarification" that the parliamentarian (!) proposed to ad to the bylaw quoted above, by a simple motion:

..." and must be based on...press conferences ... occurring during the period starting January 1st prior to the qualifying fiscal year (e.g. an 18 month period) to qualify as clippings; stories based on and photographs taken during activities occurring prior to that 18-month period may not be submitted"...

There are more such "clarifications", about four times more in length.

THE QUESTION:

Can   a(n un-noticed)  simple motion to "clarify" a bylaw be a valid and legal way to modify/amend/expand a bylaw, bypassing the amending procedure outlined in the bylaws?

Or is all this null and void?

 

Thank you.

Y.

 

 

 

[Richard Brown]

2 minutes ago, Guest YORAM said:

THE QUESTION:

Can   a(n un-noticed)  simple motion to "clarify" a bylaw be a valid and legal way to modify/amend/expand a bylaw, bypassing the amending procedure outlined in the bylaws?

No.  Any such "clarification" would have to be an actual bylaw amendment and would have to go through the regular process for amending the bylaws.  Unless your bylaws provide otherwise, there is no method for "fast tracking" or "short cutting" "clarifying" amendments. 

[Guest thank you richard]

my claim exactly (from the floor).

Motion rammed through, "passed".

We'll fight.

 

YK

[Guest Zev]

If the chair declared this motion to have been adopted then next meeting raise a Point Of Order to the affect that the proper procedure established in the bylaws for amendments was not followed and that the motion is null and void. If the chair agrees then this particular problem goes away. If the chair disagrees then move an Appeal and have a friend at the ready to second the motion.

[Guest zev]

thanks zev

will do

 

shana tova

Y

[jstackpo]

3 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

If the chair declared this motion to have been adopted then next meeting raise a Point Of Order to the affect that the proper procedure established in the bylaws for amendments was not followed and that the motion is null and void. If the chair agrees then this particular problem goes away. If the chair disagrees then move an Appeal and have a friend at the ready to second the motion.

But... if the chair rules your point of order "not well taken" and, upon appeal, the membership sustains that ruling, you are stuck with a few new paragraphs in your bylaws. Always can happen.

Good luck figuring out what they mean!

[Joshua Katz]

It's too late to object, but the parliamentarian shouldn't be making motions either. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/23/2018 at 10:50 PM, Guest YORAM said:

THE QUESTION:

Can   a(n un-noticed)  simple motion to "clarify" a bylaw be a valid and legal way to modify/amend/expand a bylaw, bypassing the amending procedure outlined in the bylaws?

Or is all this null and void?

 

Thank you.

Y.

 

 

 

No, that's rubbish.  Changing a single word or punctuation mark* in the bylaws requires going through the specified amendment  procedure which usually requires notice and a greater than majority vote. See your bylaws.

Calling something a "clarification" is no justification for failing to follow proper procedure and the fact that the person suggesting this nonsense assumes the title of "parliamentarian" is particularly troubling.

__________
* Even a single comma can substantially change the meaning of the language.  Compare "Let's eat, Grandma" with "Let's eat Grandma".

[Joshua Katz]

51 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

* Even a single comma can substantially change the meaning of the language.  Compare "Let's eat, Grandma" with "Let's eat Grandma".

Just ask Sir Roger Casement (well, you could if there had been a comma where one arguably belonged, and he wasn't executed), or Oakhurst Dairy.

[Guest amend by a motion]

thank you all.

much appreciated.

this site rocks.

 

YK