Constitutional revision committee procedure

[mjhmjh]

I have deleted this question and will reword and repost my question as a new post

Edited October 23, 2019 at 06:53 PM by mjhmjh

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, mjhmjh said:

An organization has made me chair of a committee to propose a revision to their Constitution (they do not have bylaws). The instructions are for us to "[revise] the... constitution to correct any typos and expand on any procedural actions that may be of importance," which are fairly broad instructions. The committee includes myself (not a member), 7 people (most members), and a member ex officio (the president). Consistent with RONR (the chapter on bylaws in particular), I was planning to follow this procedure:

In the first meeting, we will discuss changes we would like to see to the constitution. Then, we would create drafting subcommittee(s) to write out the motions we agree upon in the full committee (e.g. "I move that the subcommittee draft an amendment clarifying the different classes of membership"). 

Instructions to "[revise] the... constitution to correct any typos and expand on any procedural actions that may be of importance" appears to me to fall far short of authorizing drafting of an amendment "clarifying the different classes of membership".

[mjhmjh]

15 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Instructions to "[revise] the... constitution to correct any typos and expand on any procedural actions that may be of importance" appears to me to fall far short of authorizing drafting of an amendment "clarifying the different classes of membership".

I agree, that was a poor example.

[mjhmjh]

33 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Instructions to "[revise] the... constitution to correct any typos and expand on any procedural actions that may be of importance" appears to me to fall far short of authorizing drafting of an amendment "clarifying the different classes of membership".

I have updated my post with the correct motion: "create a special committee for constitutional revisions."

[Richard Brown]

14 minutes ago, mjhmjh said:

I agree, that was a poor example.

I thought you were quoting the committee  charge from a real life situation. It isn’t?

[mjhmjh]

1 minute ago, Richard Brown said:

I thought you were quoting the committee  charge from a real life situation. It isn’t?

The committee charge is from a real life situation (see the updated charge though). However, the committee hasn't met yet, so I (carelessly) came up with an example of a motion that I thought might be made at the committee meeting.

[Richard Brown]

6 minutes ago, mjhmjh said:

I have updated my post with the correct motion: "create a special committee for constitutional revisions."

Mjhmjh, Since you have significantly changed the question, and many of our regulars have probably already read the original question, may I suggest that you just delete your original post with a comment that “I have deleted this question and have reworded and reposted my question as a new post”. 

Usually we clarify a question with subsequent posts, not by rewording the original post. That leads to confusion because the original answers are no longer applicable

Edited October 23, 2019 at 06:42 PM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction

[mjhmjh]

Just now, Richard Brown said:

Mjhmjh, Since you have significantly changed the question, and many of our regulars have probably already read the original question, may I suggest that you just delete your original post with a comment that “I have deleted this question and have reworded and reposted my question as a new post”. 

Usually we clarify a question with subsequent posts, not by rewarding the original post. That leads to confusion because the original answers are no longer applicable

Thank you for the tip. I will do that now and apologize for the confusion.