scope of notice

[Laura Meade]

A discussion came up in our group about scope of notice. In 57:11, it says, "If the bylaws require previous notice for their amendment (as they should), or if they do not but notice has been given and a majority of the entire membership is not present, no amendment to a bylaw amendment is in order that increases the modification of the article or provision to be amended (see 35:2(6))."   Does that imply that if there is a majority of the entire membership present there can be amendments beyond the scope of notice?   Please explain. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

24 minutes ago, Libran said:

Does that imply that if there is a majority of the entire membership present there can be amendments beyond the scope of notice?   Please explain. 

What this paragraph is alluding to is that if bylaws do not contain their own requirements for amendment, then the default rule in RONR is that bylaws may be amended by either (a) previous notice and a two-thirds vote or (b) a majority of the entire membership.

In such a case, if a majority of the entire membership is present, then it is possible for a bylaw amendment to be adopted without any notice at all, and therefore an amendment to a proposed bylaw amendment is in order even if it would destroy the effect of any notice that was given.

[Shmuel Gerber]

See also 35:4.

[Laura Meade]

Thank you