Revision of Bylaws

[JustinPappano]

Suppose a society is revising its Bylaws per 57:5-6 of RONR, and the assembly does not wish to consider the amendments seriatim; instead, the society would like to consider the revision by other means. What other means, if any, would you suggest are in order?

This society requires a 2/3s vote with notice to amend their bylaws, and their parliamentary authority is RONR. 

[Gary Novosielski]

Since this is a complete revision, consideration seriatim makes sense.  The other option is to consider the entire revision at one time, so that any debate or amendments are likely to be more chaotic.

If they do not wish to us the preferred method, what reason should we suppose they might have?

[JustinPappano]

On 5/19/2023 at 7:50 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

what reason should we suppose they might have?

Perhaps they are misguided? Or are they seeking out chaos?

Whatever the reason is, I wonder what other options they have; could they consider half of the bylaws seriatim and then move to suspend the rules to consider the rest in gross? 

[Atul Kapur]

I don't believe that any suspension is necessary. RONR (12th ed.) 57:6 just says that a revision "should be considered seriatim" [emphasis added] rather than must. So, at any time while the revision is being considered seriatim, a member could move that it be considered as a whole/

The alternative to considering seriatim is to consider as a whole. See 28:5 and 28:11.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/19/2023 at 7:53 PM, JustinPappano said:

Perhaps they are misguided? Or are they seeking out chaos?

Whatever the reason is, I wonder what other options they have; could they consider half of the bylaws seriatim and then move to suspend the rules to consider the rest in gross? 

Sure.

[puzzling]

It looks like the preparation of the bylaws revision was not done well. I guess during the preparation you will discuss subjects as group (what kinds of membership, authority of the board, standing Committee,  rules for amendment) 

During the preparation ot looks best to do them as groups , but I do think during final consideration it is best to do it by paragraph.

Wondering if a member  an demand splitting of a revision for a part that is really a subject on its own (for example the rules for future amending of the bylaws)

[Josh Martin]

On 5/19/2023 at 6:37 PM, JustinPappano said:

Suppose a society is revising its Bylaws per 57:5-6 of RONR, and the assembly does not wish to consider the amendments seriatim; instead, the society would like to consider the revision by other means. What other means, if any, would you suggest are in order?

The only means other than seriatim consideration is consideration "as a whole." This is in order, although generally not advisable for a complete revision of the bylaws.

There are, however, potentially different "levels" of seriatim consideration. The organization could, for example, take amendments one article at a time, or it could go a level further and take amendments one section at a time, or even go further and take a paragraph at a time. One might even imagine mixing and matching these - taking amendments one article at a time for the most part, and dropping down to a further level of detail for particular articles as needed.

If you introduce Suspend the Rules, then that broadens the options further.

On 5/19/2023 at 6:50 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Since this is a complete revision, consideration seriatim makes sense.  The other option is to consider the entire revision at one time, so that any debate or amendments are likely to be more chaotic.

If they do not wish to us the preferred method, what reason should we suppose they might have?

Generally, the most likely reason (other than simply being confused) is that the assembly anticipates that there will be no amendments, or at least very few amendments.

On 5/19/2023 at 6:53 PM, JustinPappano said:

Whatever the reason is, I wonder what other options they have; could they consider half of the bylaws seriatim and then move to suspend the rules to consider the rest in gross? 

It would require a suspension of the rules to do so, but yes, this could be done.

On 5/19/2023 at 7:09 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I don't believe that any suspension is necessary. RONR (12th ed.) 57:6 just says that a revision "should be considered seriatim" [emphasis added] rather than must. So, at any time while the revision is being considered seriatim, a member could move that it be considered as a whole/

The alternative to considering seriatim is to consider as a whole. See 28:5 and 28:11.

In the event a member does not make the motion until after seriatim consideration has already begun, I believe a suspension of the rules would be required.

On 5/20/2023 at 3:52 AM, puzzling said:

Wondering if a member  an demand splitting of a revision for a part that is really a subject on its own (for example the rules for future amending of the bylaws)

No, I do not believe Division of a Question is in order for a complete revision of the bylaws.

The member can accomplish the same objective by moving to amend the portion of the revision he disagrees with.

Edited May 22, 2023 at 12:16 PM by Josh Martin