Amendment of Proposal renders others moot

[A Brown]

If there are two proposals regarding bylaw amendments on an agenda, and the first proposal is amended (and passes as amended) which makes the second proposal no longer germane, how do you dispose of the second proposal?  A motion to postpone indefinitely?  

[Josh Martin]

12 minutes ago, A Brown said:

If there are two proposals regarding bylaw amendments on an agenda, and the first proposal is amended (and passes as amended) which makes the second proposal no longer germane, how do you dispose of the second proposal?  A motion to postpone indefinitely?  

RONR notes that the amendments should be arranged in a logical order to avoid this problem from arising to begin with. In the event this nonetheless occurs, however, it appears the chair may simply announce that the latter amendment is dropped - no motion is necessary.

"If notice is given of several amendments which conflict so that all cannot be given effect, the chair should arrange them in a logical order, much as in the case of filling blanks (12), generally taking the least inclusive amendment first and the most inclusive last so that the last one adopted is given effect. Such arrangement of the amendments can be altered by the assembly by a majority vote without debate. Adoption of such an arrangement by unanimous consent or a formal vote is not subject to a motion to Reconsider, nor may a later, separate amendment be offered as a substitute for a pending one. However, as already stated on page 592, all bylaw amendments of which notice was given should be considered, as a matter of the rights of their proposers, and a bylaw amendment is not dropped simply because it would conflict with one previously adopted. This procedure does not violate the normal parliamentary rule as might appear, because when any bylaw amendment is adopted, that amendment becomes a part of the bylaws immediately; and it is the bylaw language as thus amended, rather than the previous language, which any bylaw amendments subsequently considered would now propose to modify. If an amendment that has not been considered no longer presents a rational proposition because it was applicable only to language which has disappeared from the bylaws in this process, such a bylaw amendment must, of course, be dropped; but this situation should generally not arise if the amendments are taken up in proper order as indicated above." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 593-594)

Edited April 1, 2020 at 04:01 PM by Josh Martin

[A Brown]

Thanks.  Hopefully I can explain it in more detail just to make sure I understand you correctly.   Proposal 1 would amend the bylaws to give authority for a task to both Position #1 and Position #2, and if it passes, Proposal 2 would only speak to Position #2 in regard to its new authority.  If Proposal 1 is amended so that authority is ONLY given to Position #1, how should Proposal 2 be dealt with?   The chair should drop Proposal 2 and no motion is necessary to dispose of it?  That is how I interpret what you stated and what the last sentence of RR says.

Edited April 1, 2020 at 06:06 PM by A Brown

[Gary Novosielski]

It's difficult to know exactly what the situation would be without studying exactly what words are added, struck, or replaced in the bylaws as the result of each amendment.  Looking at the exact language of how the bylaws would read, after passage of Proposal 1 potentially as amended, and how they would then read after passage of Proposal 2.  If the second proposal would create an absurdity, then it would be necessary to drop it, but if worded differently, Proposal 2 might resurrect the authority of Position 2, which although it might seem to conflict with the amendment of Proposal 1, would nevertheless be in order.  

The requirement for rationality applies to the finished product of the language in the bylaws, it does not require members to vote rationally in their decision-making process.😷

Edited April 2, 2020 at 04:13 PM by Gary Novosielski
formatting

[Josh Martin]

21 hours ago, A Brown said:

Thanks.  Hopefully I can explain it in more detail just to make sure I understand you correctly.   Proposal 1 would amend the bylaws to give authority for a task to both Position #1 and Position #2, and if it passes, Proposal 2 would only speak to Position #2 in regard to its new authority.  If Proposal 1 is amended so that authority is ONLY given to Position #1, how should Proposal 2 be dealt with?   The chair should drop Proposal 2 and no motion is necessary to dispose of it?  That is how I interpret what you stated and what the last sentence of RR says.

Based on the facts presented, I see no reason why Proposal 2 should be dropped. If Proposal 1 is amended so that authority is given only to Position 1, and it is adopted, then Proposal 2 remains in order. If Proposal 2 is then adopted, then authority will be given only to Position 2. As noted in the text above, the fact that the bylaw amendment would conflict with a previously adopted amendment does not make it out of order.

This is a bit tricky when dealing with abstract concepts, however, and it may help if we were able to see the exact language of the current rules and of the two proposals.