HOW TO PHRASE AN AMENDMENT SO IT WILL EXPIRE AFTER A SET SHORT TIME AND THE ORIGINAL RESTORED.

[star1441]

Hello-

We plan to amend a bylaw but want to restore it after one year, automatically, so we will not need to go again through an amendment process.

What is the correct language to use?

As an example, the by law now says "a maximum of five members".

We want to change it to ten members, but restore to the original limit of five after one year.

Something like:

"Admit five new members shall be amended to read admit  ten members, and this sentence shall be struck on december 31, 2021" ?

Or?

 

Thanks

 

Yoram

 

 

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, star1441 said:

We plan to amend a bylaw but want to restore it after one year, automatically, so we will not need to go again through an amendment process.

What is the correct language to use?

As an example, the by law now says "a maximum of five members".

We want to change it to ten members, but restore to the original limit of five after one year.

Something like:

"Admit five new members shall be amended to read admit  ten members, and this sentence shall be struck on december 31, 2021" ?

"I move to amend Article X, Section X, by striking "five" and inserting "ten," with the proviso that it shall revert to "five" on December 31, 2021."

This isn't quite how a proviso normally works, but I am not aware of any reason a society could not do this. See RONR, 12th ed., 57:15-17 for more information on provisos.

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/24/2021 at 7:48 AM, Josh Martin said:

"I move to amend Article X, Section X, by striking "five" and inserting "ten," with the proviso that it shall revert to "five" on December 31, 2021."

This isn't quite how a proviso normally works, but I am not aware of any reason a society could not do this. See RONR, 12th ed., 57:15-17 for more information on provisos.

I think that this sort of "proviso" is apt to give rise to all sorts of problems.  🙂

[Atul Kapur]

 how about just adding a sentence: "In the year 2021, an additional five members may be admitted."

Not ideal, but simple, clear, and gets the job done.

If desired, I suppose you could adopt the amendment with the proviso that this sentence will be struck from the bylaws on January 1, 2022. Not certain if Mr. @Daniel H. Honemann envisions this would work any better.

Edited April 25, 2021 at 07:23 PM by Atul Kapur
Added sentences regarding the proviso

[Weldon Merritt]

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think that this sort of "proviso" is apt to give rise to all sorts of problems.  🙂

For example?

[J. J.]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think that this sort of "proviso" is apt to give rise to all sorts of problems.  🙂

I doubt if it would.

In any event, it would certainly be in order. 

[Richard Brown]

I think any of the suggestions will work, but I tend to prefer the one suggested by Dr Kapur or one along these lines:  To amend Article xx Section yy to add: However for the calendar year 2021, a total of ten new members may be admitted".

It could also be added as a separate section (or subsection), but I would use this language:  "Notwithstanding any provisions of these bylaws to the contrary, in the calendar year 2021 a total of ten new members may be admitted."

[Dan Honemann]

A "proviso" of the type described by Mr. Martin is not designed to delay the effective date of a proposed amendment to the bylaws or to provide that it shall not affect officers already elected. It is not the sort of proviso described in RONR, 12th ed., 57:15-17, to which he refers. Provisos of the sort described in RONR may be moved in several ways, none of which requires previous notice and all of which may be adopted by majority vote. They do not become a part of the bylaws but are simply reflected in "a footnote or similar device."

The "proviso" described by Mr. Martin proposes, in effect, that Article X, Section X of the bylaws which, upon adoption of the proposed amendment, will contain the phrase "a maximum of ten members" be amended once again on December 31, 2021 by striking "ten" and inserting "five". I do not think that this is something that can be adopted without previous notice and by majority vote.  Nor is it something that can simply be reflected in a footnote or similar device. In other words, if this is to be done at all it will have to be done in the wording of the bylaw amendment itself, as suggested in some of the previous responses. 

[Guest Puzzling]

I also (like Mr Honemann) dislike a proviso to temporarily amend the bylaws. 

My proposal would be an addition to the article saying that the membership by some supermajority vote may allow more aspirants to join the membership (maybe even adding more conditions).

This way you prepare the organisation for similar situations in the future.