Is a motion to rescind necessary?

[George Mervosh]

The society adopts a special rule of order outside of the bylaws.  The society now wants to move the rule, in its exact same form, into the bylaws because it will be harder to rescind or amend it in their case, and a bylaw amendment is properly proposed. Must the special rule of order be rescinded before the bylaw amendment becomes pending?  I'm not sure why this isn't clear to me.  Thanks.

[Richard Brown]

On 10/5/2022 at 8:04 AM, George Mervosh said:

The society adopts a special rule of order outside of the bylaws.  The society now wants to move the rule, in its exact same form, into the bylaws because it will be harder to rescind or amend it in their case, and a bylaw amendment is properly proposed. Must the special rule of order be rescinded before the bylaw amendment becomes pending?  I'm not sure why this isn't clear to me.  Thanks.

George, my initial reaction, which is more of a gut reaction based on RONR as a whole rather than on any particular rule, isi that it is not necessary to rescind the special rule of order before the proposed bylaw amendment becomes pending.  The primary rationale for my thinking is that if and when the bylaw amendment is adopted, it will supersede the special rule of order.  The special rule of order could probably remain in place, but I believe it would be best to rescind it after the bylaw amendment is adopted.  Another way of doing it would be to add a provision to the bylaw amendment motion, possibly in the nature of a proviso, that if the bylaw amendment is adopted, the special rule of order shall be automatically rescinded.

Edited to add:  Another reason for not rescinding the special rule of order first is that if the bylaw amendment fails, you would probably want the standing rule of order to still be in place.

Edited October 5, 2022 at 01:22 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Josh Martin]

On 10/5/2022 at 8:04 AM, George Mervosh said:

The society adopts a special rule of order outside of the bylaws.  The society now wants to move the rule, in its exact same form, into the bylaws because it will be harder to rescind or amend it in their case, and a bylaw amendment is properly proposed. Must the special rule of order be rescinded before the bylaw amendment becomes pending?  I'm not sure why this isn't clear to me.  Thanks.

No, I don't think there is any need to rescind the rule prior to the bylaw amendment becoming pending. Indeed, it may be unwise to do so, unless the proposers are very confident that the amendment will be adopted, and the rule in question will not have an impact on the consideration of the bylaw amendment.

Strictly speaking, there is no need to rescind the rule after the bylaw amendment has been adopted either, although it would likely be prudent to do so.

On 10/5/2022 at 8:20 AM, Richard Brown said:

Another way of doing it would be to add a provision to the bylaw amendment motion, possibly in the nature of a proviso, that if the bylaw amendment is adopted, the special rule of order shall be automatically rescinded.

I certainly think this could be done, although I would not describe it as a proviso. Rather, it would be a resolution containing multiple parts - the motion to adopt the bylaws and the motion to rescind the special rule of order. Generally, the requirements to adopt an amendment to the bylaws will be at least as rigorous (if not more so) than requirements to rescind a special rule of order (and we are told this is the case here), so combining the motions in this manner should not pose any particular problems.

Edited October 5, 2022 at 01:28 PM by Josh Martin

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 10/5/2022 at 9:26 AM, Josh Martin said:

On 10/5/2022 at 9:20 AM, Richard Brown said:

 

I certainly think this could be done, although I would not describe it as a proviso. Rather, it would be a resolution containing multiple parts - the motion to adopt the bylaws and the motion to rescind the special rule of order. Generally, the requirements to adopt an amendment to the bylaws will be at least as rigorous (if not more so) than requirements to rescind a special rule of order (and we are told this is the case here), so combining the motions in this manner should not pose any particular problems.

I agree.