Amending Ambiguous Bylaws: if 2/3 not achieved what happens?

[Guest R.W.]

Hello I will be chairing a church congregation meeting for the first time, and I have a question in anticipation of the meeting.

We have a couple of situations that require amending certain bylaws.  I have proposed holding a meeting separate from the regular annual meeting to focus on these amendments.  (otherwise the main AGM might run to 4 hours)  The bylaws state that amendments require "an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Voting Members at a Congregational Meeting".

If the vote fails to achieve 2/3 affirmatives, what is the status of the bylaw(s) being amended?  If unchanged it will remain ambiguous, and one bylaw will affect who can be voted into a position at the next AGM.  (If I need to provide the specific example let me know)

 

thanks in advance for your kind advice. 

 

[Atul Kapur]

6 minutes ago, Guest R.W. said:

If the vote fails to achieve 2/3 affirmatives, what is the status of the bylaw(s) being amended? 

It stays the way it was.

[Richard Brown]

2 minutes ago, Guest R.W. said:

If the vote fails to achieve 2/3 affirmatives, what is the status of the bylaw(s) being amended? 

If the proposed bylaw amendment fails to obtain the required vote of two thirds of the members present, it fails and the bylaws remain as they were.  Members are free to try again at another meeting, but must again follow the prescribed procedure for amending the bylaws. 

[Guest ambiguous bylaws]

Thank you for your prompt feedback.  So if the vote fails and the ambiguous bylaws stand, we will have the same problems we went through at the 2021 meeting.

-- For one of the elected positions, two candidates were nominated.  (both from the floor)  there was a lot of discussion about the suitability of one candidate, both for and against.  There was also a lot of confusion about the position role, and about how to vote on Zoom.  Two votes later, the results were extremely close but not a tie, and the previous chair chose not to cast a vote.  (Many parishioners did not vote at all, between the technical difficulties and the heated debate.)  The decision was made to table this and toss it to the parish council to rule at a later date.  Their rule was to that both candidates would hold the position equally -- which was an idea floated at the AGM.  The bylaws were written assuming *one* person holds this or any position.

-- Minutes and decisions are to be published "promptly".  Minutes of council meetings have not been published publicly for more than a year.  Minutes of the 2021 AGM, held in April, have not even been transcribed.

-- Prior to the 2021 meeting, the Nomination Committee (which as per bylaws are the directors of the council) felt it was a conflict of interest to be composed of the same people who were on the council and were [mostly] all willing to stand for the same positions in 2021.  They delegated responsibility [at the last minute] to the previous chair to collect nominations by email, confirm anyone nominated by other people was willing to stand, and set up the slate.  if the Committee composition is inappropriate, that should be addressed long before the AGM.

I invite your feedback on any of these points.  Thank you.

[Guest R.W.]

Just to clarify:  the post that says it's written by "Guest ambiguous bylaws" is by me.  I understood the first field as a subject line, instead of my name, and I don't see how to edit it.

[Atul Kapur]

My initial, somewhat glib, response is that none of these issues can be blamed on your bylaws.

1 hour ago, Guest ambiguous bylaws said:

For one of the elected positions, two candidates were nominated.

RONR cautions against co-chairs, and the rationale generalizes to the sharing of any position being a bad idea.

The voting problem is a technical one but a very serious one as it apparently deprived members of their right to vote. 

You say that the votes were close, but did either candidate get a majority of votes cast? If so, that person should have been declared elected.

1 hour ago, Guest ambiguous bylaws said:

Minutes and decisions are to be published "promptly".

The assembly can adopt a motion to set a deadline for this to happen.

If the deadline is missed, the assembly can censure or discipline the secretary.

1 hour ago, Guest ambiguous bylaws said:

Prior to the 2021 meeting, the Nomination Committee (which as per bylaws are the directors of the council) felt it was a conflict of interest . . . 

They should do their job as assigned to them by the bylaws until the bylaws are changed.