Revision vs Amendment and a strange method

[AFS1970]

My fire department is in the middle of a by law revision. Our pace has slowed down but we are still working as a committee and are almost done with a proposal. There are large parts which don't need to be changed. Having just read another thread here about missing sections and having heard rumors of previous bylaws amendments that nobody seems to be able to find, I want to make sure we are going about this the right way.

When we compile our final proposed revision, we are making a complete document and including the unchanged sections where they are. This way we do not accidentally delete anything. Is this correct? Also when reading the proposal, should we note areas that have no changes?

Secondly as we have some other documents that come into play, so we need to list a hierarchy of documents? We obviously have to follow federal, state & local laws. We have our By-Laws but then we also have a document called Rules of Operation which I am lobbying hard to get rid of entirely and fold some sections into the by-laws as they seem to intrude into each other's scope. We also have a few standard operating procedures that cover firefighting operations but have nothing to do with parliamentary or corporate function, however they derive their authority from the bylaws. Should these relationship be included in the bylaws?

Lastly, one veteran member who is not on our committee but is largely seen as a knowledge source (often incorrectly it turns out) has told the committee several times that the way a revision gets passed is that every member gets a copy and can make changes to them and then the committee has to include those changes in what finally gets voted on. This seems strange to me. It also seems to encourage conflict as there is no guarantee that all members will want the same changes. I believe that the revision should be read, moved and voted on as a yes or no vote. All at the same meeting.  Is there a preferred method for this kind of vote?

[Rob Elsman]

You should read RONR (11th ed.), §57, pp. 592ff.

Clearly, the chair should proceed by consideration seriatim or paragraph by paragraph. If, per chance, the chair fails to do this, any member can make the incidental motion, Consideration Seriatim, RONR (11th ed.), §28, pp. 276ff.

Debate and amendments should be handled as discussed in §28.

If it is your intention to preclude amendments (..."a yes or no vote."), I advise against it. This kind of important document should be subjected to the most intense scrutiny, debate, and amendment. If you read this forum for very long, you will see why.

Whether the final vote on the main motion occurs at the same meeting that the committee presents its report is ultimately up to the assembly. Again, because of the importance of the document, I advise taking all the time that is needed, even if consideration requires more than one meeting.

[jstackpo]

In reference ASF1970's "Lastly..." paragraph:

Once again your veteran member is wrong.   Since this is a revision, any member can propose  additional amendments, even to the sections for which there were no amendments originally.  But those proposals get treated as any other specific amendment would:  stated, debated, voted on (majority), and announced as to whether the amendment carried or failed.  All this is prior to the final vote on adopting the "General Revision".

I highly recommend finding (hiring-?) a professional parliamentarian to guide your  chair through the revision process.  I have been to meetings of parliamentarians who royally screwed up the process of adopting a complex revision -- it can be real tricky.

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, AFS1970 said:

When we compile our final proposed revision, we are making a complete document and including the unchanged sections where they are. This way we do not accidentally delete anything. Is this correct? Also when reading the proposal, should we note areas that have no changes?

 

If you are doing a bylaw revision, and it is adopted, you'll have a new set of bylaws, containing what is in them. So if you want something to stay, yes, include it. But keep in mind (see below) that it can be amended away anyway.

1 hour ago, AFS1970 said:

Secondly as we have some other documents that come into play, so we need to list a hierarchy of documents? We obviously have to follow federal, state & local laws. We have our By-Laws but then we also have a document called Rules of Operation which I am lobbying hard to get rid of entirely and fold some sections into the by-laws as they seem to intrude into each other's scope. We also have a few standard operating procedures that cover firefighting operations but have nothing to do with parliamentary or corporate function, however they derive their authority from the bylaws. Should these relationship be included in the bylaws?

 

I'm a bit confused what you're asking here. Do your bylaws adopt RONR as your parliamentary authority? If so, it provides a hierarchy. From a parliamentary perspective, you have to follow procedural statutes - a substantively illegal motion is not out of order, but should be voted down for obvious reasons. Instead of focusing on what these documents are called, focus on what they do. What do your Rules of Operation do? Your SOPs are, in essence, standing rules, and should have been adopted by the assembly. Were they? What do you mean when you say they derive their authority from the bylaws? 

 

1 hour ago, AFS1970 said:

Lastly, one veteran member who is not on our committee but is largely seen as a knowledge source (often incorrectly it turns out) has told the committee several times that the way a revision gets passed is that every member gets a copy and can make changes to them and then the committee has to include those changes in what finally gets voted on. This seems strange to me. It also seems to encourage conflict as there is no guarantee that all members will want the same changes. I believe that the revision should be read, moved and voted on as a yes or no vote. All at the same meeting.  Is there a preferred method for this kind of vote?

This is ridiculous. The member is free to move his amendments at the meeting, but not to make the committee put them into its revision. And, as a reminder, when the revision is presented, it is open to amendment without any scope of notice considerations. The preferred (correct) method would be as described above by Mr. Elsman. 

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, AFS1970 said:

When we compile our final proposed revision, we are making a complete document and including the unchanged sections where they are. This way we do not accidentally delete anything. Is this correct?

Yes. 
 

1 hour ago, AFS1970 said:

Also when reading the proposal, should we note areas that have no changes?

That is up to you. Any statement or discussion as to what is and is not changing should either be set out in a separate document or brought up during debate.  A notation of what is and is not changing should not be noted in the bylaw document itself.  Personally, I think it is a good idea to point out to the members what is and isn’t changing. If you have a separate document explaining the changes, you can put it there. If not, it can be done in a preparatory statement, such as the report of the bylaws committee,  prior to debate or it can be done during debate.

1 hour ago, AFS1970 said:

Secondly as we have some other documents that come into play, so we need to list a hierarchy of documents?

No. 
 

[AFS1970]

Thanks for all the help, sorry I am so late in returning but I was on vacation and am now dealing with a knee injury. 

What I meant by a hierarchy of documents was do we have to list anywhere in the bylaws what rules supersede other rules? SOPs have nothing to do with our meetings or parliamentary rules they are strictly operational rules about how the fire department operates (on emergency calls and training) our rules of operation are a mess and I am hoping we can get rid of them, but they seem to sit somewhere in between the bylaws and the SOPs as they contain sections that deal with specific duties of officers on scene but also contains further definitions and requirements for classes of membership. We already list RONR as the parliamentary authority although I only know of one time that we appealed to it since I have been a member. That was an unpopular ruling but it showed that the department had been doing something wrong as long as anyone could remember. 

What I meant by deriving their authority from the bylaws is we have a bylaw that says who can make rules (SOPs). So any rule made derives its authority from the officers who derive it from that section of the bylaws. 

As for bringing in a parliamentarian, that is a wonderful idea but I doubt our president would even consider it. He would never allow anything to get in the way of his running a meeting. even our own bylaws.  I may just show him this thread as a guide. 

Edited December 12, 2019 at 10:35 PM by AFS1970