amendments to by laws

[Guest rudd28fan@hotmail.com]

when proposed amendments to by laws are being discussed for the first meeting, can an open discussion be made about an and individual proposal.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Guest rudd28fan@hotmail.com said:

when proposed amendments to by laws are being discussed for the first meeting, can an open discussion be made about an and individual proposal.

Can you explain the situation in more detail? So far, the question seems to be "Can we discuss a bylaw amendment while we are discussing bylaw amendments?" The answer to that question seems pretty obvious, so I feel like I'm missing something.

For example, I'm not sure what "the first meeting" refers to here. Is there a specific procedure in the organization's bylaws which requires multiple meetings to amend the bylaws? That may be relevant.

Additionally, what distinction are you attempting to draw between "proposed amendments to bylaws... being discussed" and "an open discussion... about an individual proposal?"

Edited March 11, 2021 at 12:15 AM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

I can respond in fewer words than Mr. Martin did. I’m confused and don’t understand what the  situation is or what the question is.

[Guest R.W.]

Here's how I interpreted Rudd28's qn, and I may be running into something similar.  (please keep in mind I am new at this.)

A bylaw needs to be amended, therefore you call a meeting to do so.  Can we discuss the point of why the bylaw needs amending in the first place, or just proceed with the amendment text?

The usual process as I understand it:  1) Move the new bylaw text, 2) second, 3) discuss  *the text itself not the reasoning*, 4) read the motion again, 5) vote, 2/3 for the win.

What may be needed:  1) Current situation, 2) Explain possible alternate scenarios, 3) Discuss the scenarios, 4) Move and second to vote on the ideal scenario, 5) vote, simple majority or 2/3 as the rules allow, 6) Present the new bylaw text corresponding to the winning scenario, 7) move and second the new bylaw text, 8)) discuss the text itself [insert any motions for amending motion 7 here], 9) read the final motion again, 10) vote, 2/3 for the win, 11) Carries:  ta da new amendment OR fails:  status quo, 12) point out officially for the minutes what the consequences are of 11.

I'm an I.T. person, so the longer way is an IF-THEN-ELSE statement structure.

 

 

[Richard Brown]

I screwed up the copy and paste.  Will try again with a new post.

Edited August 20, 2021 at 07:16 PM by Richard Brown
Deleted post and will try again

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Guest R.W. said:

A bylaw needs to be amended, therefore you call a meeting to do so.  Can we discuss the point of why the bylaw needs amending in the first place, or just proceed with the amendment text?

 

1 hour ago, Guest R.W. said:

The usual process as I understand it:  1) Move the new bylaw text, 2) second, 3) discuss  *the text itself not the reasoning*, 4) read the motion again, 5) vote, 2/3 for the win.

A proposed bylaws amendment is fully debatable, just as other main motions are.  The debate can go into the reasons for and against adopting something just as much as the actual language of the proposal.  The reasons for or against adopting a motion are just as debatable as the actual language of the motion (proposed bylaw amendment in this case).

[Josh Martin]

On 8/20/2021 at 12:23 PM, Guest R.W. said:

A bylaw needs to be amended, therefore you call a meeting to do so.  Can we discuss the point of why the bylaw needs amending in the first place, or just proceed with the amendment text?

When a motion to amend the bylaws is pending, "the point of why the bylaw needs amending in the first place" is germane to the debate. The question before the assembly is whether the proposed amendment shall be adopted, so indeed this is the primary topic of discussion. To the extent that members believe that the amendment is generally desirable but that the text should be changed, subsidiary motions to amend are in order (within the limitations of the scope of notice).

On 8/20/2021 at 12:23 PM, Guest R.W. said:

The usual process as I understand it:  1) Move the new bylaw text, 2) second, 3) discuss  *the text itself not the reasoning*, 4) read the motion again, 5) vote, 2/3 for the win.

This understanding is not correct. The reasoning behind the amendment may be (and should be) discussed while the amendment is pending.

The understanding of the rest of the process is generally correct, although the following clarifications should be noted:

1) Generally, previous notice of bylaw amendments is required. In the event the bylaws are silent, notice may be given orally at the previous meeting, or included in the call of the meeting.

2) A 2/3 requirement is very common for amending the bylaws, but ultimately the bylaws will specify the threshold for their amendment. In the event the bylaws are silent, a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership without notice is the requirement.

On 8/20/2021 at 12:23 PM, Guest R.W. said:

What may be needed:  1) Current situation, 2) Explain possible alternate scenarios, 3) Discuss the scenarios, 4) Move and second to vote on the ideal scenario, 5) vote, simple majority or 2/3 as the rules allow, 6) Present the new bylaw text corresponding to the winning scenario, 7) move and second the new bylaw text, 8)) discuss the text itself [insert any motions for amending motion 7 here], 9) read the final motion again, 10) vote, 2/3 for the win, 11) Carries:  ta da new amendment OR fails:  status quo, 12) point out officially for the minutes what the consequences are of 11.

The procedure you describe is not consistent with RONR. Discussion is not in order without a motion pending. When that motion is made, however, members may discuss whether or not that motion should be adopted. Additionally, they may propose amendments to the motion.

Edited August 21, 2021 at 10:56 PM by Josh Martin