simcha Posted April 5, 2020 at 06:36 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2020 at 06:36 PM Hello all. Our congregation's bylaws require 15 days advance notice of an amendment that will be voted on in a general membership meeting. A member is circulating a proposed amendment to the amendment, and the response so far has been that the amended proposal would need another 15 days notice. Is this the case? Should the membership be able to vote on an amendment to the amendment without this notice? I'm sorry that I can't consult my copy of RONR, but I'm sheltering in place in a different state. I'm sure you all understand. Thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted April 5, 2020 at 06:45 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2020 at 06:45 PM 2 minutes ago, simcha said: Hello all. Our congregation's bylaws require 15 days advance notice of an amendment that will be voted on in a general membership meeting. A member is circulating a proposed amendment to the amendment, and the response so far has been that the amended proposal would need another 15 days notice. Is this the case? Should the membership be able to vote on an amendment to the amendment without this notice? I'm sorry that I can't consult my copy of RONR, but I'm sheltering in place in a different state. I'm sure you all understand. Thanks in advance. Per the rules in RONR, if proper notice of a proposed bylaw amendment has been given, that proposed amendment, when it is up for debate, may indeed be amended, but with one caveat: the proposed "new" amendment must be within the scope of the original proposed amendment. For example, assume the dollar amount of your dues is specified in the bylaws as $50 per year. Assume further that the proposed bylaw amendment is to increase the dues to $75 per year. Once that bylaw amendment is on the floor, it may be amended to specify any amount BETWEEN the current $50 per year the the proposed $75 per year. So, a proposal to amend it to provide for new dues of $60 is within the "scope" of the original proposal and would be in order. However, a proposal to reduce the dues to less than $50 or to increase them to more than $75 exceeds the scope of the original proposal and would be out of order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simcha Posted April 5, 2020 at 06:58 PM Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2020 at 06:58 PM Thank you for the quick response. The amendment concerns the term of office for president. The amendment already sent to the congregation allows the president to serve 2 years (up from 1 year) and to run for re-election (this part is not new). The proposed amendment to the amendment requires that if the president runs for re-election, it would require a 2/3 vote for election. This to me seems out of the original scope, according to what you've said -- do you agree? Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted April 5, 2020 at 07:05 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2020 at 07:05 PM 1 minute ago, simcha said: Thank you for the quick response. The amendment concerns the term of office for president. The amendment already sent to the congregation allows the president to serve 2 years (up from 1 year) and to run for re-election (this part is not new). The proposed amendment to the amendment requires that if the president runs for re-election, it would require a 2/3 vote for election. This to me seems out of the original scope, according to what you've said -- do you agree? Thanks! If the effect of the original proposed bylaw amendment is simply to change the term of office from one year to two years, then I agree with your assessment. It is my understanding that the option to serve two terms is not changing, or at least not as originally proposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simcha Posted April 5, 2020 at 07:08 PM Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2020 at 07:08 PM Correct -- the president can already run for re-election. The major change is the requirement of a 2/3 vote for election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted April 5, 2020 at 07:36 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2020 at 07:36 PM 35 minutes ago, simcha said: Thank you for the quick response. The amendment concerns the term of office for president. The amendment already sent to the congregation allows the president to serve 2 years (up from 1 year) and to run for re-election (this part is not new). The proposed amendment to the amendment requires that if the president runs for re-election, it would require a 2/3 vote for election. This to me seems out of the original scope, according to what you've said -- do you agree? Thanks! I agree that this amendment is out of scope. Therefore, it is correct that the member would need to provide 15 days of notice of this amendment. I would also suggest that this amendment is not germane to the question of whether the term of office for the President is one or two years. So this should be handled as a separate amendment to the bylaws, not as an amendment to the motion concerning the term of office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simcha Posted April 5, 2020 at 07:48 PM Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2020 at 07:48 PM I confess I hadn't thought of that, but it makes good sense. Thank you for your response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 7, 2020 at 04:54 AM Report Share Posted April 7, 2020 at 04:54 AM And be careful with the wording of that second amendment. The way you phrased it, it appears that if the president is among the candidates, a 2/3 vote is required for anyone to be elected. Am I right that this was not the intent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted April 7, 2020 at 04:55 AM Report Share Posted April 7, 2020 at 04:55 AM Just now, Gary Novosielski said: And be careful with the wording of that second amendment. This is very good advice. More people should take it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 10, 2020 at 12:42 AM Report Share Posted April 10, 2020 at 12:42 AM I see what you, did there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted April 10, 2020 at 01:11 AM Report Share Posted April 10, 2020 at 01:11 AM (edited) Edited April 10, 2020 at 01:13 AM by Atul Kapur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted April 10, 2020 at 06:30 AM Report Share Posted April 10, 2020 at 06:30 AM Well played, sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts