Bylaw change maneuver - kosher?

[Alexander George]

We'd like to change the days/times of our regular meetings.  I believe this is a bylaw change that requires a 2/3 majority.  Some have proposed splitting the vote into two.  First, a motion to effect a change in our regular meetings (requiring 2/3 majority) and, should this first motion pass, a second motion to the effect that the change is so-and-so (with a bare majority required). 

Is this a kosher maneuver?  (I speculate the root of this maneuver is a fear that the particular change might not reach a 2/3 majority if proposed as a single motion.)

Thank you.

[Gary Novosielski]

If a change to the bylaws requires a two-thirds vote, as it almost always does, then changing "something" to "so-and-so" requires a two-thirds vote.

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/13/2023 at 6:14 PM, Alexander George said:

We'd like to change the days/times of our regular meetings.  I believe this is a bylaw change that requires a 2/3 majority.  Some have proposed splitting the vote into two.  First, a motion to effect a change in our regular meetings (requiring 2/3 majority) and, should this first motion pass, a second motion to the effect that the change is so-and-so (with a bare majority required). 

Is this a kosher maneuver?  (I speculate the root of this maneuver is a fear that the particular change might not reach a 2/3 majority if proposed as a single motion.)

Thank you.

The only way to make a change in the bylaws is to amend the bylaws.

[Joshua Katz]

On 4/13/2023 at 5:14 PM, Alexander George said:

Is this a kosher maneuver?  (I speculate the root of this maneuver is a fear that the particular change might not reach a 2/3 majority if proposed as a single motion.)

 

Agreeing with my colleagues, kashrut is outside the scope of this forum, which is limited to RONR.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/13/2023 at 5:14 PM, Alexander George said:

We'd like to change the days/times of our regular meetings.  I believe this is a bylaw change that requires a 2/3 majority.

Assuming the dates and times of your regular meetings are specified in the bylaws, and your bylaws provide that a 2/3 vote is required for their amendment, I agree with this assessment.

On 4/13/2023 at 5:14 PM, Alexander George said:

Some have proposed splitting the vote into two.  First, a motion to effect a change in our regular meetings (requiring 2/3 majority) and, should this first motion pass, a second motion to the effect that the change is so-and-so (with a bare majority required). 

Is this a kosher maneuver?  (I speculate the root of this maneuver is a fear that the particular change might not reach a 2/3 majority if proposed as a single motion.)

No.

[Drake Savory]

What about if the assembly voted (2/3) to remove the day/time/place/etc. out of the bylaws completely.  Then they could pass a standing rule as to day/time/place/etc. by a majority vote.  This also has the advantage that day/time/place/etc. can be changed simply through Amend Something Previously Adopted which is much simpler in most cases than passing a(nother) bylaws amendment.

[Richard Brown]

On 4/15/2023 at 9:42 AM, Drake Savory said:

What about if the assembly voted (2/3) to remove the day/time/place/etc. out of the bylaws completely.  Then they could pass a standing rule as to day/time/place/etc. by a majority vote.  This also has the advantage that day/time/place/etc. can be changed simply through Amend Something Previously Adopted which is much simpler in most cases than passing a(nother) bylaws amendment.

Yes, I agree that this could be done. However, I think it would be better to amend the current bylaw language to say that “the dates, times, and locations of meetings shall be established by standing rule“

I agree with @Josh Martin that the two step procedure proposed by the original poster is not advisable  and would probably be out of order. 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/15/2023 at 9:42 AM, Drake Savory said:

What about if the assembly voted (2/3) to remove the day/time/place/etc. out of the bylaws completely.  Then they could pass a standing rule as to day/time/place/etc. by a majority vote.  This also has the advantage that day/time/place/etc. can be changed simply through Amend Something Previously Adopted which is much simpler in most cases than passing a(nother) bylaws amendment.

I think that's a good suggestion, if the organization is amenable to having such rules in the standing rules. This would actually be a method by which the "two step" process the OP describes would work. It would be a 2/3 vote to remove the date/time/place from the bylaws and a majority vote to adopt a standing rule.

I concur with Mr. Brown, however, that in this instance it would be preferable for the bylaws to say something to the effect of "the dates, times, and locations of meetings shall be established by standing rule" rather than being entirely silent on the subject.