Guest Gretchen Posted July 26, 2019 at 04:21 AM Report Share Posted July 26, 2019 at 04:21 AM We have adopted RONR in our bylaws and all bylaw proposals require 60 day previous notice. Someone proposed to add the following bylaw statement to the committee section of our bylaws which would in effect authorize electronic meetings for committees: “Except for the Board of Directors, all committees established by the Society, including Standing Committees and Special Committees (select, or ad hoc), are allowed to conduct electronic meetings.” Because our Board was not a committee (but a form of assembly) and since the Board was not being authorized to conduct electronic meeting anyway, the first six words appear to constitute a redundant phase. So when the bylaw proposal came up for adoption on the floor of the assembly, I proposed a primary amendment which would strikeout the first six words so that if my amendment was adopted proposal would read as followsl: “Except for the Board of Directors, aAll committees established by the Society, including Standing Committees and Special Committees (select, or ad hoc), are allowed to conduct electronic meetings.” The chair ruled my motion out of order and the reason given for his ruling is that my amendment exceeded the scope of the notice. In your professional opinion does my amendment exceed the scope of the original notice. I don’t believe so and would like for you to weigh in! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted July 26, 2019 at 04:39 AM Report Share Posted July 26, 2019 at 04:39 AM As a general rule, removing an "except" clause broadens the change, and thus is outside the scope of notice. Here, the except clause wasn't doing anything, but grammatically the point stands. If I were presiding, I'd probably rule that it goes beyond the scope of notice and see what the assembly does on appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted July 26, 2019 at 05:18 AM Report Share Posted July 26, 2019 at 05:18 AM Guest Gretchen has an identical post on July 17 with answers from both myself and Mr. Martin. Please refer to those answers and let us know if you still need help. https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/33992-scope-of-bylaw-notice/?do=reportComment&comment=200612 https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/33992-scope-of-bylaw-notice/?do=reportComment&comment=200619 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted July 26, 2019 at 05:20 AM Report Share Posted July 26, 2019 at 05:20 AM This seems like more of a tech issue, but neither of those links worked for me - all they did was send me to a page to report a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted July 26, 2019 at 07:17 AM Report Share Posted July 26, 2019 at 07:17 AM Yipes! I guess I did the wrong thing. Here, try this instead. https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/33992-scope-of-bylaw-notice/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted July 26, 2019 at 07:40 PM Report Share Posted July 26, 2019 at 07:40 PM (edited) 14 hours ago, Guest Zev said: Guest Gretchen has an identical post on July 17 with answers from both myself and Mr. Martin. Please refer to those answers and let us know if you still need help. https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/33992-scope-of-bylaw-notice/?do=reportComment&comment=200612 https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/33992-scope-of-bylaw-notice/?do=reportComment&comment=200619 Those links do not link to the actual messages, but rather are links to report those messages for violations. Edited July 26, 2019 at 07:40 PM by Gary Novosielski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts