Delaying Bylaw amendments

[RGV]

Our Bylaws are to be read three times and then voted upon. Can, after the second reading, any motion be made which would delay the final reading and vote to accept?  If so, can that motion be rescinded?

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

Without seeing your bylaws, I would imagine a motion to suspend the rules could accomplish the delay if it is adopted by the appropriate vote. Such a motion may be later rescinded or amended.

[Guest Zev]

Is this the very first time the bylaws are to be adopted or is this an amendment and the so-called three readings are a current bylaws requirement before the amendment can be adopted?

[RGV]

The current bylaws are very outdated and do not address the option of suspending rules. 

Yes, the current bylaws require reading the proposed amendments 3x, then voting to approve after the 3rd reading. 

[George Mervosh]

RONR has no help regarding your individual 3 reading rule, however, I suspect after the third reading, the proposed amendments will become pending and open to debate and other subsidiary motions, and at that time, you could move to postpone the motion to adopt the amendments.  A majority vote is required. That's just my best guess.

[Atul Kapur]

We are all speculating here because this depends on what the exact wording in your bylaws is about these three readings. However, one wrinkle that may come up if you try to delay the third reading is that it may be necessary that these three readings occur at consecutive meetings. In other words, if you skip a meeting you may have to go back to the beginning and give three readings again. I say this because the three readings seem basically to serve the function of giving previous notice of the motion. If you can interrupt the three readings, then you are effectively defeating the purpose of it being read three times: so that people who may not attend every meeting can know when it will come up for decision.

Edited December 18, 2018 at 03:40 PM by Atul Kapur
Edited last sentence to make it clearer

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

3 hours ago, RGV said:

The current bylaws are very outdated and do not address the option of suspending rules. 

Yes, the current bylaws require reading the proposed amendments 3x, then voting to approve after the 3rd reading. 

If RONR is your adopted parliamentary authority, then most rules of order, even when placed in the bylaws, may be suspended. Your process of reading proposed bylaw amendments at three meetings may possibly be a rule of order.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

If RONR is your adopted parliamentary authority, then most rules of order, even when placed in the bylaws, may be suspended. Your process of reading proposed bylaw amendments at three meetings may possibly be a rule of order.

Yes, but as Mr. Kapur has noted, the purpose of the “three reading” rule most likely is to serve as a previous notice requirement, and such rules have the effect of protecting absentees. This may complicate efforts to suspend the rule.

15 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Without seeing your bylaws, I would imagine a motion to suspend the rules could accomplish the delay if it is adopted by the appropriate vote. Such a motion may be later rescinded or amended.

The motion to suspend the rules, in this instance, would be an incidental motion, and thus the motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted would not be applicable. I am certainly in agreement that the assembly could change its mind on this, but Rescincd/ASPA would not be the proper tool.

I am entirely in agreeement with Mr. Mervosh that, after all readings have been completed, the motion itself may be postponed to the next regular meeting (provided it was within a quarterly interval), and no suspension of the rules would be needed in order to do so. If it was later desired to take up the motion before the time it was postponed to, it may be possible to use the motion to Reconsider. If the time limits for that motion has passed, Suspend the Rules would work.

As to postponing the reading, I concur with Mr. Kapur and others that this depends on an interpretation of what the society’s rules on this matter mean.

16 hours ago, RGV said:

Our Bylaws are to be read three times and then voted upon. Can, after the second reading, any motion be made which would delay the final reading and vote to accept?  If so, can that motion be rescinded?

Is there a particular reason why it is desired to postpone the reading, and not to simply postpone the motion itself? Additionally, why the question about “rescinding” the motion to delay? How long is it being proposed to delay the motion? Since there are time limits on how far a motion may be postponed (at most, to the next regular meeting), the issue of taking the motion up earlier than the time it was postponed to does not generally arise.

Edited December 18, 2018 at 06:09 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Zev]

RGV: I get the sense that you are opposed to the amendment itself. If this is the case then one additional technique adopted by opponents of a motion is to offer enough amendments that render the motion unpalatable to the majority. Remember that the amendments must be in order and germane to the question. Delaying the final vote by referring it to a committee is another.

[RGV]

Actually it’s just the opposite. I am the author of a full revision to the C & BLs. We have a left wing group who only cares about what’s in it for them, rather then what’s in the best interest of the organization. We also have a Chairman who knows little to nothing about our existing C & BLs and/or RONR. Nobody seems to care much about getting it done the right way. 

A number of months ago while reading a report on the revision, a member moved to table the report. The chair didn’t know what to do and I stated that the motion was out of order. The chair thought for a minute and then announced that he was “overruling the rules”. Yup, that’s what I’m up against. 

Later a number of motions were made, so I just sat back down. Now that same group wants to move ahead with the revision. 

To make it easiest on our members, should I just start at the beginning again and read them 3 times or can I pick up from where we left off?

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

8 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

The motion to suspend the rules, in this instance, would be an incidental motion, and thus the motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted would not be applicable. I am certainly in agreement that the assembly could change its mind on this, but Rescincd/ASPA would not be the proper tool.

Would it not be an incidental main motion if made at a time that the amendments are not pending?

[Guest Zev]

5 hours ago, RGV said:

Actually it’s just the opposite.

In that case it will depend on what the bylaws say exactly about how many readings must be done and in what timeframe they must be delivered. We need to see that language to comment further.

5 hours ago, RGV said:

A number of months ago while reading a report on the revision, a member moved to table the report.

A report cannot be laid on the table nor can it be amended and it cannot be objected to. A motion that flows from the report, however, can be laid on the table or postponed.

5 hours ago, RGV said:

The chair didn’t know what to do and I stated that the motion was out of order.

That is correct.

5 hours ago, RGV said:

The chair thought for a minute and then announced that he was “overruling the rules”.

I'm not entirely sure what the chairman actually did in this case, but “overruling the rules” sure sounds like some form of parliamentary hanky-panky to me.

5 hours ago, RGV said:

To make it easiest on our members, should I just start at the beginning again and read them 3 times or can I pick up from where we left off?

Again, in my opinion this will depend on the language used in the bylaws that requires these reading to be done. If it does not say something specific such as "in the next three meetings" then perhaps picking up where it was left is good enough, however, the members of this assembly may have a different opinion on this matter. 

[Josh Martin]

16 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Would it not be an incidental main motion if made at a time that the amendments are not pending?

Possibly. I suppose it depends on exactly what the motion proposes to do. An incidental motion may, after all, still be incidental even if no motion is pending, in certain circumstances.

“As a class, incidental motions deal with questions of procedure arising out of: (1) commonly, another pending motion; but also (2) sometimes, another motion or item of business 

a) that it is desired to introduce, 
b) that has been made but has not yet been stated by the chair, or 
c) that has just been pending.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 69)

18 hours ago, RGV said:

Later a number of motions were made, so I just sat back down. Now that same group wants to move ahead with the revision. 

To make it easiest on our members, should I just start at the beginning again and read them 3 times or can I pick up from where we left off?

What exactly was the wording used when the motion was made to “table” the report? How much time, and how many meetings, have passed since this occurred?

Edited December 19, 2018 at 07:10 PM by Josh Martin

[RGV]

The motion to table the report was made only once, some 4 months ago

[Gary Novosielski]

Presuming that was four meetings ago, any motion that was (improperly) laid upon the table and never taken up again is now dead.

[Josh Martin]

16 hours ago, RGV said:

The motion to table the report was made only once, some 4 months ago

Based on these additional facts, I think it will almost certainly be necessary to start over. A motion which is laid on the table dies if it is not taken from the table by the end of the next regular meeting, or by the end of the same meeting if the next meeting is more than a quarterly interval interval away.

12 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Presuming that was four meetings ago, any motion that was (improperly) laid upon the table and never taken up again is now dead.

It is probably dead in any event, since four months is more than a quarterly interval. (I say “probably” since the OP may be rounding up, in which event whether a quarterly interval has intervened is ambiguous.)

Edited December 27, 2018 at 06:29 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Zev]

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

...in which event whether a quarterly interval has intervened is ambiguous.)

If it were not for the fact that RONR's definition of quarterly interval may actually be more than a quarter. I hate these threads where we need to explain large sections of the book before getting to the real issue.

[Gary Novosielski]

13 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

It is probably dead in any event, since four months is more than a quarterly interval. (I say “probably” since the OP may be rounding up, in which event whether a quarterly interval has intervened is ambiguous.)

RIght. That's what led me to presume (hope?) that there were some meetings that intervened during that interval.

I don't see anything to suggest that the matter is anything but toast at this point.