Mark Apodaca, PRP Posted July 22, 2020 at 02:19 AM Report Share Posted July 22, 2020 at 02:19 AM An organization has a conference coming. The delegates will attend the business meeting known as Council of Representatives. Each state has X number of delegates represented at the meeting. One group, which is called Order of Georges, are allowed to send 6 representatives to the meeting. It is in the bylaws. There is an amendment to change the name from Order of Georges to Order of Coats. If the amendment passes, the name will change. There is another group, which wants to eliminate the Order of Georges as delegates to the Council of Representatives thus to have the group removed from the bylaws. They plan to present their amendment during the meeting. If a motion is made to change the name and passes, is the group allowed to make a motion to have the Order of Coats removed from the bylaws? It is dealing with the same section of the bylaws. If the group which wants to eliminate the Order of Georges and makes a motion and it passes, the section is removed from the bylaws. Can the other group make a motion to add it back under a different name? I am under the impression that if one motion passes, they need to wait till the next day to make the second motion. Your thoughts? Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 22, 2020 at 02:37 AM Report Share Posted July 22, 2020 at 02:37 AM (edited) 18 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said: There is an amendment to change the name from Order of Georges to Order of Coats. If the amendment passes, the name will change. There is another group, which wants to eliminate the Order of Georges as delegates to the Council of Representatives thus to have the group removed from the bylaws. They plan to present their amendment during the meeting. If a motion is made to change the name and passes, is the group allowed to make a motion to have the Order of Coats removed from the bylaws? It is dealing with the same section of the bylaws. I would first note that a motion to eliminate a group from the bylaws is clearly not within the scope of an amendment to simply change the group's name. So if the amendment to remove the group in question has not received proper notice, then it seems to me the amendment in question in not in order at all during this convention. If proper notice has been given of this amendment, however, I see no reason why there would be a need to wait a day to make the amendment. An amendment to remove the group still makes sense even although the group now has a different name. 18 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said: If the group which wants to eliminate the Order of Georges and makes a motion and it passes, the section is removed from the bylaws. Can the other group make a motion to add it back under a different name? If both of these amendments receive proper notice, they should be arranged in a logical order, such that the most inclusive amendment is considered last so that it is the amendment which takes effect. In other words, the amendment to rename the order should be considered first, and the amendment to remove the order should be considered last. If for some reason this is not done, then I suppose the amendment to rename the order will need to be dropped, since an amendment to rename an order which no longer exists does not contain any rational proposition. "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) 18 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said: I am under the impression that if one motion passes, they need to wait till the next day to make the second motion. I don't know where you got this impression. I am not aware of any rule to that effect in RONR, and I certainly do not see such a rule in the section which addresses the procedure for considering conflicting amendments, which I have quoted above. Edited July 22, 2020 at 02:38 AM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Apodaca, PRP Posted July 22, 2020 at 02:49 AM Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2020 at 02:49 AM Fastest response I have ever seen. 🙂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted July 22, 2020 at 03:27 AM Report Share Posted July 22, 2020 at 03:27 AM 36 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said: Fastest response I have ever seen. 🙂 And accurate, too! As Mr. Martin's responses typically are. 🙂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts