Proper use of Consent Calendar

[BaileyPoo]

I am a member acting as parliamentarian for a state-wide organization that meets annually.  Periodically bylaw revisions have been submitted that the Bylaws Committee felt would be adopted with little or no opposition.  Those bylaws have been grouped together, referred to as a consent calendar and voted on in gross while the remaining proposed revisions are addressed separately.  I recall receiving prior notification of the intent to address those revisions as a group, and before the vote was taken, having an opportunity to remove items from the group; but I don't recall there being a special rule introduced.  Reading other comments in this forum about consent calendars being used for 'routine matters' has led me to question if we are using it correctly.  Does the fact that the bylaws in question would be adopted without question qualify as 'routine'?  

Edited September 30, 2020 at 06:49 PM by BaileyPoo
left out some information

[BaileyPoo]

I meant to add that there was a place on the agenda to consider bylaws , but not the consent calendar.  That was only mentioned in the notice we received that gave a listing of the bylaw revisions we would be considering.

[Gary Novosielski]

Is the use of a Consent Calendar mentioned in your bylaws or special rules of order, or did someone just start referring to this group of motions as a consent calendar?

[Rob Elsman]

My overall impression is that most modifications to bylaws are considered seriatim, or paragraph-by-paragraph, to provide the greatest possible opportunity for thorough, serious deliberation and further modification until the text is absolutely perfected.

Why this organization wants to treat its modifications as if they are routine and relatively inconsequential is beyond me.  I don't get it.  

[Atul Kapur]

If there is truly no opposition, then you can adopt these amendments to the bylaws all at once by unanimous consent.

You could also adopt a motion to Suspend the Rules to accomplish the same thing.

Ensure that members have the opportunity to request that any of the proposed amendments be voted on separately.

25 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

My overall impression is that most modifications to bylaws are considered seriatim, or paragraph-by-paragraph

I understand that this applies to adoption of bylaws for the first time and to revisions. But I don't see this used for one amendment to the bylaws, or even several amendments.

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, BaileyPoo said:

I am a member acting as parliamentarian for a state-wide organization that meets annually.  Periodically bylaw revisions have been submitted that the Bylaws Committee felt would be adopted with little or no opposition.  Those bylaws have been grouped together, referred to as a consent calendar and voted on in gross while the remaining proposed revisions are addressed separately.  I recall receiving prior notification of the intent to address those revisions as a group, and before the vote was taken, having an opportunity to remove items from the group; but I don't recall there being a special rule introduced.  Reading other comments in this forum about consent calendars being used for 'routine matters' has led me to question if we are using it correctly.  Does the fact that the bylaws in question would be adopted without question qualify as 'routine'?  

A consent calendar is generally used in an assembly with a large volume of routine and noncontroversial business, especially in governmental bodies. Appropriate rules of order are adopted for the use of the consent calendar. Generally, such rules will provide for how items are placed on the consent calendar, provide a place on the agenda for the consent calendar, and provide that the items on the consent calendar are voted on in gross, but that a single member may demand that one or more items be removed from the consent calendar and considered in the usual fashion. It would be unusual for an organization to use a consent calendar for bylaw amendments, but an organization ultimately could adopt rules of order providing for this if it wished to do so. Consent calendars are discussed in more detail in RONR (12th ed.) 41:32.

In the absence of a rule on this matter, a member could still introduce a motion proposing the adoption of multiple amendments to the bylaws, although a single member may demand that a particular amendment be considered separately.

"Sometimes a series of independent resolutions relating to completely different subjects is offered by a single main motion in the same way. In the latter case—where the subjects are independent—any resolution in the series must be taken up and voted on separately at the demand of a single member. Such a demand can be made even when another has the floor, at any time until  the vote has been taken on adopting the series. A member wishing to make this demand rises and says, for example, “Mr. President, I call for a separate vote on Resolution No. 2.”" RONR (12th ed.) 10:25

I would also caution against the use of the word "revision" in this context. The word "revision" in parliamentary law refers to a proposal to replace the bylaws in their entirety with a new version. When this method of amendment is used, how the situation would be handled is that amendments to the revision would be considered (generally by seriatim consideration) and, after any amendments have been adopted, a final vote is taken on the revision as a whole. Since you refer to "revisions" (plural), I expect that these are, in fact, isolated amendments rather than a "revision" in the parliamentary sense.