Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
Guest ECross

Picking up from Table

Recommended Posts

Guest ECross

At the last meeting of our organization (I was absent) a new set of Bylaws came before the organization for a vote. They had been distributed 10 days prior to the meeting according to our current rules. A brief explanation of the changes was offered, a motion and second was obtained to approve the Bylaws. During the discussion one member had several minor changes to offer, many grammatical in nature. A motion was made to Lay the Motion to approve the Bylaws on the table was made, seconded and approved. We are holding a special meeting to address the issue of Bylaws and little if anything else. Normally we meet quarterly.

The Bylaws committee chair met with the member proposing changes and will meet and modify the Bylaws, essentially creating a different set than those presented and tabled. This has been a contentious matter and anticipate acceptance as long as we can move beyond this motion to lay on the table.

We have a member who insists we must vote on the Bylaws as presented and may not amend the Bylaws attached to the motion laid on the table.

Can we take up the motion to affirm the Bylaws and vote it down, then entertain a motion to approve the Bylaws 2.0?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ECross

Clarification: The Bylaws committee will meet again and modify the Bylaws taking the suggestions into consideration. Comma placement is vital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amendments to the proposed changes to the bylaws are allowed as long as they are within the scope of notice. Assuming these changes proposed by the one member for within that scope, it should be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Guest ECross said:

Clarification: The Bylaws committee will meet again and modify the Bylaws taking the suggestions into consideration. Comma placement is vital.

Since the matter was not referred back to the bylaws committee I can't see this being in order at all.  When the motion is taken from the table, any member may propose amendments within the scope of the notice provided to the members. As I understand your facts so far, the committee is no longer involved in this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The subsidiary motion, Lay on the Table, was misused and not in order. The proper motion would have been Postpone to a Certain Time.

While the motion to postpone was pending, a member would have made a privileged motionFix the Time to Which to Adjourn. The adoption of this privileged motion would have set up an adjourned meeting in lieu of this "special meeting".

At the adjourned meeting, the chair would call up the main motion as an order of the day. After stated by the chair, the main motion would yield to the subsidiary motion, Amend, provided the modification would not exceed the scope of the previous notice given.

How different what I describe is from what actually occurred. My guess is that your group needs to go back to step one and re-learn its parliamentary procedure.

Edited by Rob Elsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

Since the matter was not referred back to the bylaws committee I can't see this being in order at all.  When the motion is taken from the table, any member may propose amendments within the scope of the notice provided to the members. As I understand your facts so far, the committee is no longer involved in this matter.

If the bylaws committee is helping the member write up the amendments to be offered up when the motion is taken from the table then it would be appropriate.  If they are rewriting the document that currently lies on the table then George is correct as the proposed bylaws belong to the assembly and not the bylaws committee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ECross

I agree a postponement or other options would have been better - I was not there. Many claim but not one knows the process well, if at all. It is a mess thus my question.

So the person with the suggested amendments - or anyone can offer amendments once it is taken back up. Unfortunately many of the proposed amendments are essentially reversing all the changes back to the 2011 Bylaws which landed us in court because they violate statue. We are without Bylaws at the moment as ours were deemed illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if the amendments offered are unfortunate, one would expect them to be voted down.  If they violate the law, the chair should declare them out of order.  

I'm surprised that you have "no" bylaws.  Who did this "deeming"?  Are you saying that your entire bylaws was deemed illegal?  I can understand certain provisions being troublesome, but every word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that gives your group two things to do—hopefully better than it did the first time around.

In preparing the bylaws' revisions, it would be advisable to acquire the assistance of an attorney in order to avoid the kinds of problems that landed the group in court before.

In preparing to conduct meetings, the president should acquire a copy of RONR (11th ed.) and familiarize himself with it. He should always have it at hand during meetings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Guest ECross said:

At the last meeting of our organization (I was absent) a new set of Bylaws came before the organization for a vote. They had been distributed 10 days prior to the meeting according to our current rules. A brief explanation of the changes was offered, a motion and second was obtained to approve the Bylaws. During the discussion one member had several minor changes to offer, many grammatical in nature. A motion was made to Lay the Motion to approve the Bylaws on the table was made, seconded and approved. We are holding a special meeting to address the issue of Bylaws and little if anything else. Normally we meet quarterly.

The Bylaws committee chair met with the member proposing changes and will meet and modify the Bylaws, essentially creating a different set than those presented and tabled. This has been a contentious matter and anticipate acceptance as long as we can move beyond this motion to lay on the table.

We have a member who insists we must vote on the Bylaws as presented and may not amend the Bylaws attached to the motion laid on the table.

Can we take up the motion to affirm the Bylaws and vote it down, then entertain a motion to approve the Bylaws 2.0?

For starters, the motion to Lay on the Table appears to have been misused. The proper motion was the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time.

In any event, the member is mistaken that the revision may not be amended. It may be amended.

4 hours ago, Guest ECross said:

Clarification: The Bylaws committee will meet again and modify the Bylaws taking the suggestions into consideration. Comma placement is vital.

The bylaws committee has no authority to do this unless the revision is referred to it. Currently, the revision is in the hands of the assembly.

4 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Amendments to the proposed changes to the bylaws are allowed as long as they are within the scope of notice. Assuming these changes proposed by the one member for within that scope, it should be fine.

This appears to be a revision, in which case anything is within scope.

2 hours ago, Guest ECross said:

So the person with the suggested amendments - or anyone can offer amendments once it is taken back up. Unfortunately many of the proposed amendments are essentially reversing all the changes back to the 2011 Bylaws which landed us in court because they violate statue. We are without Bylaws at the moment as ours were deemed illegal.

Then vote against those amendments.

Additionally, if it is in fact correct that the organization now has no bylaws whatsoever as a result of the court ruling (which I find unlikely), then I suppose this is a case of adopting a new set of bylaws rather than a revision (because there is nothing to revise), but in any event, amendments are in order, with no limits of scope.

Edited by Josh Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...