Updating wording of Bylaws

[Guest Chris]

Amendment of our Bylaws requires a 2/3 majority vote of the members in attendance at the annual meeting who vote. Does every wording change require this vote? We have some wording changes for clarity that were recommended by the non-profit attorney.

 

Here are 2 examples: (underlined words are to be added; strike-throughs are to be removed)

"A special meeting of the association may be called by the Board of Directors or upon written petition signed (electronically or otherwise) by no
fewer less than ten percent (10%) of the Active and Life members of the association. Notice of this meeting shall be given to Active and Life members
by any technology that the association customarily uses to communicate with members, including but not limited to..."

"The Discipline Committee shall be composed of at least five (5) members. The members of this committee shall be alert to and investigate
disciplinary issues, shall review and investigate all written complaints on disciplinary issues, shall determine if such complaints warrant a formal
disciplinary hearing charges shall be brought, shall manage each case and report the necessary and recommended resolutions to the Board of Directors,
and, shall hold the all disciplinary hearings trial, if it should be necessary."

 

Thanks.

[Richard Brown]

7 minutes ago, Guest Chris said:

Does every wording change require this vote? We have some wording changes for clarity that were recommended by the non-profit attorney.

Technically, each and every bylaw change should be a separate amendment and subject to a separate vote. However, it is permissible to present a group of non-controversial technical amendments “in globo” to be voted on as a group with one vote unless a member objects, in which case any amendments objected to must be voted on separately.  They would be proposed as separate amendments, but can be voted on as a group with one vote. 

Edited April 29, 2021 at 04:37 PM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction

[Weldon Merritt]

Any change to the wording of the bylaws must go through the amendment process specified in the bylaws. 

And BTW, there is no such thing as "a 2/3 majority vote." A majority is one thing (more than half), and 2/3 is another thing (at least twice as many "yes" votes as "no"). 

[Weldon Merritt]

1 minute ago, Richard Brown said:

“in globo”

That's a new one for me, Richard. Is that an actual term that I missed learning, or is it a typo?

[Richard Brown]

9 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said:

That's a new one for me, Richard. Is that an actual term that I missed learning, or is it a typo?

LOL!!! It’s a typo. It should be “in globo”, which actually is probably not the best term but it’s the one that came to mind as I was dictating the answer.

Edited to add: Upon rereading my original comment and your comment, I thought you were saying I had typed “gobo” rather than “globo”.  Now that I have reread it, I see that I did use the term that I intended. Perhaps the phrase is only used in certain parts of the country, but where I come from it is frequently used to indicate “as a group“.

edited again to add: it means as a whole, rather than separately.

Edited April 29, 2021 at 04:49 PM by Richard Brown
Added last two paragraphs

[Guest Chris]

1 hour ago, Weldon Merritt said:

Any change to the wording of the bylaws must go through the amendment process specified in the bylaws. 

And BTW, there is no such thing as "a 2/3 majority vote." A majority is one thing (more than half), and 2/3 is another thing (at least twice as many "yes" votes as "no"). 

Yes. That was a misstatement on my part. 

[Guest Chris]

Thank you for your replies.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

However, it is permissible to present a group of non-controversial technical amendments “in globo” to be voted on as a group with one vote unless a member objects, in which case any amendments objected to must be voted on separately.

I used the term “in globo” which means as a group rather than individually, but RONR uses the term “in gross“. See § 51:48 (b). 

See also sections 52:13 and 52:23 (RONR, 12th Ed.) 
 

Edited April 29, 2021 at 06:17 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Gary Novosielski]

From the Latin "globo" meaning a glob.  As distinct from "in blobo" or "in lumpo". 

[Rob Elsman]

I think he meant en bloc.  Nevertheless, it is refreshing to see that someone did his Latin homework in high school.  "Globo", in this instance, is masculine gender, singular number, and ablative case, being the object of "in", where "in" does not infer motion.  As with so many other similar Latin phrases, it is usually best to translate into English using an adverb--"together", in this case.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 4/29/2021 at 12:29 PM, Guest Chris said:

Amendment of our Bylaws requires a 2/3 majority vote of the members in attendance at the annual meeting who vote. Does every wording change require this vote? We have some wording changes for clarity that were recommended by the non-profit attorney.

 

Here are 2 examples: (underlined words are to be added; strike-throughs are to be removed)

"A special meeting of the association may be called by the Board of Directors or upon written petition signed (electronically or otherwise) by no
fewer less than ten percent (10%) of the Active and Life members of the association. Notice of this meeting shall be given to Active and Life members
by any technology that the association customarily uses to communicate with members, including but not limited to..."

"The Discipline Committee shall be composed of at least five (5) members. The members of this committee shall be alert to and investigate
disciplinary issues, shall review and investigate all written complaints on disciplinary issues, shall determine if such complaints warrant a formal
disciplinary hearing charges shall be brought, shall manage each case and report the necessary and recommended resolutions to the Board of Directors,
and, shall hold the all disciplinary hearings trial, if it should be necessary."

 

Thanks.

Changing "no less than 10%" to "no fewer than 10%" is a highly controversial proposal, in my opinion. 🙂

[J. J.]

I would suggest that you move to strike out the paragraph and insert this one in its place:

"The Discipline Committee shall be composed of at least five (5) members. The members of this committee shall review and investigate all written complaints on disciplinary issues, shall determine if such complaints warrant a formal disciplinary hearing, shall manage each case and report the necessary and recommended resolutions to the Board of Directors, and, shall hold all disciplinary hearings."