How to handle "minor" amendments

[Setemu]

My assembly has had a few instances where documents instating or amending policy, which are recommended by a committee, have been moved for adoption and contain errors that appear to be of the nature of copyedits—whether a missing word or punctuation, a misspelling, or of accidentally using policy terms no longer used by the assembly. Sometimes these needed edits seem insubstantial, for example, there are two consecutive “the”s, and one needs to be stricken. Sometimes the substantiality of the edit is not immediately clear, like the insertion of a comma or adding a conforming amendment to the recommendation. Other times, there is a single word accidentally omitted that has significant consequences to the interpretation of the language.

My general understanding is that if the needed amendment is something as simple as a misspelling or a duplicate indefinite article, the secretary can just make the edit; but, anything else, including conforming amendments to make language consistent across documents, needs to be done (a) either by the assembly through the amendment process, or (b) the document has to be sent back to committee for that work to be done and then to be re-introduced to the assembly. Some of the assembly members are unhappy with this and would like a means by which they can adopt the amendment, in any of the above cases, with a proviso or general instruction such that both (a) and (b) above are obviated; for example, a motion “to adopt the recommended policy with the proviso that the language is updated to reflect current policy terms in use.”  

Would you recommend something like this? Only in some cases and not others?

[Joshua Katz]

7 minutes ago, Setemu said:

My general understanding is that if the needed amendment is something as simple as a misspelling or a duplicate indefinite article, the secretary can just make the edit; but, anything else, including conforming amendments to make language consistent across documents, needs to be done (a) either by the assembly through the amendment process, or (b) the document has to be sent back to committee for that work to be done and then to be re-introduced to the assembly.

There is no such general rule. The default rule, absent any rules in your organization, is that all changes must go through the ordinary amendment process. 

8 minutes ago, Setemu said:

Some of the assembly members are unhappy with this and would like a means by which they can adopt the amendment, in any of the above cases, with a proviso or general instruction such that both (a) and (b) above are obviated; for example, a motion “to adopt the recommended policy with the proviso that the language is updated to reflect current policy terms in use.”  

Would you recommend something like this? Only in some cases and not others?

If such a thing is to be done, why not just make it a bylaw allowing edits in accordance with the current edition of the Chicago Manual or the like? There should be a procedure for rejecting such edits, though. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by "current policy terms in use," but if your organization understands it, it might work. 

Personally, I think there's too much room for disagreement here, and the default rule that all edits need to be made by the amendment process should be used.

[Gary Novosielski]

5 hours ago, Setemu said:

My assembly has had a few instances where documents instating or amending policy, which are recommended by a committee, have been moved for adoption and contain errors that appear to be of the nature of copyedits—whether a missing word or punctuation, a misspelling, or of accidentally using policy terms no longer used by the assembly. Sometimes these needed edits seem insubstantial, for example, there are two consecutive “the”s, and one needs to be stricken. Sometimes the substantiality of the edit is not immediately clear, like the insertion of a comma or adding a conforming amendment to the recommendation. Other times, there is a single word accidentally omitted that has significant consequences to the interpretation of the language.

My general understanding is that if the needed amendment is something as simple as a misspelling or a duplicate indefinite article, the secretary can just make the edit; but, anything else, including conforming amendments to make language consistent across documents, needs to be done (a) either by the assembly through the amendment process, or (b) the document has to be sent back to committee for that work to be done and then to be re-introduced to the assembly. Some of the assembly members are unhappy with this and would like a means by which they can adopt the amendment, in any of the above cases, with a proviso or general instruction such that both (a) and (b) above are obviated; for example, a motion “to adopt the recommended policy with the proviso that the language is updated to reflect current policy terms in use.”  

Would you recommend something like this? Only in some cases and not others?

No, the way to avoid errors is to not adopt them. If the single word omitted was "not", including it would substantially change the meaning of the adopted language.  There are ample examples where the omission or inclusion of a single comma would completely change the meaning.

The members who are unhappy with this should read what they vote on before voting on it, and to offer amendments to fix any errors.  Allowing repairs after the fact is an invitation, in the best case, for laziness on the part of the assembly, and in the worst case, for abuse thwarting the will of the majority.

[Transpower]

RONR (11th ed.), p. 599, ll. 3-12:  "An assembly may delegate its authority in this connection in a particular case, by adopting, for example, a resolution such as the following:

     Resolved,  that the secretary [or, "the...committee"] be authorized to correct article and section designations, punctuation, and cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as my be necessary to reflect the intent of the Society in connection with ..."

 

[Rob Elsman]

Mr. Transpower, I came within an inch of making a similar response, but a careful reading of the original post convinced me that the "certain errors" listed there went beyond the kinds of "technical and conforming changes" contemplated in the cited example of a resolution. I suspect there is a mixture of such changes with other modifications that will require amendment in the normal procedural way.

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Transpower said:

RONR (11th ed.), p. 599, ll. 3-12:  "An assembly may delegate its authority in this connection in a particular case, by adopting, for example, a resolution such as the following:

     Resolved,  that the secretary [or, "the...committee"] be authorized to correct article and section designations, punctuation, and cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as my be necessary to reflect the intent of the Society in connection with ..."

 

It should be noted that the crucial words in what has been quoted above from page 599 are the words "in this connection".

Reading the sub-section from which this quote was extracted in its entirety will make it plain that this delegation of authority is limited to corrections and conforming changes in captions, headings, article or section numbers, and cross-references, and even in these limited instances the changes much be such that cannot result in a change of meaning.