Bylaws revision: the "old document cannot be altered..."

[Guest Brad Johnson]

Hello again! I now own a copy of RONR 12th. Section 57:5 states in part: "while the revision [of the bylaws] can be rejected altogether, leaving the old bylaws intact, the old document cannot be altered with a view to retaining it in a changed form."

But can't someone introduce an amendment in the nature of a substitute (ANS) to the revision that is simply a changed version of the old bylaws?

I understand that the preferred procedure for dealing with a bylaws revision is to consider it by paragraph, amending as one goes, and then holding a single vote on the amended whole.

And I can see why it would be poor procedure to go through that entire process and then have it be superseded by an ANS.

But "cannot" seems very strong.

For example, if the chair and the assembly decided to ignore the advice of RONR and forgo seriatim, I would think that an ANS that, say, incorporates one stand-alone element of the revision into the old bylaws, would be a reasonable amendment to consider.

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/27/2023 at 11:32 AM, Guest Brad Johnson said:

Hello again! I now own a copy of RONR 12th. Section 57:5 states in part: "while the revision [of the bylaws] can be rejected altogether, leaving the old bylaws intact, the old document cannot be altered with a view to retaining it in a changed form."

But can't someone introduce an amendment in the nature of a substitute (ANS) to the revision that is simply a changed version of the old bylaws?

Yes he can, but the adoption of such an amendment to the proposed revision, if adopted, will make no change in the old bylaws.  It simply changes the wording of the proposed revision which must then be adopted in order to effect the old bylaws.

[Guest Brad Johnson]

On 5/27/2023 at 11:53 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Yes he can, but the adoption of such an amendment to the proposed revision, if adopted, will make no change in the old bylaws.  It simply changes the wording of the proposed revision which must then be adopted in order to effect the old bylaws.

Thanks. I hope you can see the source of my confusion - the end result of adopting such an ANS is functionally equivalent to amending the old bylaws, although the procedure is technically different. The word "cannot" troubled me!

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/27/2023 at 12:25 PM, Guest Brad Johnson said:

Thanks. I hope you can see the source of my confusion - the end result of adopting such an ANS is functionally equivalent to amending the old bylaws, although the procedure is technically different. The word "cannot" troubled me!

But adopting the subsidiary motion to amend the pending main motion to revise the bylaws by substituting for it a different set of bylaws is not at all equivalent to amending the old bylaws. The old bylaws are not pending and nothing at all has as yet happened to them.  In order to change the old bylaws, the now pending main motion to amend them must be adopted

[puzzling]

No you are not amending the old bylaws.

The old bylaws stay as they were during the debate on the revision.

Only after the revision is complete the question is to replace the old bylaws by the new (and possibly amended) new proposal. 

This needs a 2/3 vote (or what the old bylaws prescribe).

Doing amending the old bylaws and the new proposed bylaws at the same time just creates chaos, if only because amending the revision can be done by majority,  while amending the bylaws themselves requires 2/3 or what the old bylaws themself prescribe.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/27/2023 at 12:25 PM, Guest Brad Johnson said:

Thanks. I hope you can see the source of my confusion - the end result of adopting such an ANS is functionally equivalent to amending the old bylaws, although the procedure is technically different. The word "cannot" troubled me!

Well, it's technically true.  Since the old bylaws are not pending, anything that is done by way of amendment, be it large or small, only effects the proposed revision.  It cannot affect the existing version.

Ultimately the final decision is binary: Keep the old version, or adopt the new version.

[Guest Brad Johnson]

On 5/27/2023 at 7:19 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Keep the old version, or adopt the new version.

My point is that if the assembly really wants to, the assembly *can* make the new version look like the old version with a few changes. I feel like this conversation is a variant on the ship of Theseus paradox.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/28/2023 at 6:56 AM, Guest Brad Johnson said:

My point is that if the assembly really wants to, the assembly *can* make the new version look like the old version with a few changes. I feel like this conversation is a variant on the ship of Theseus paradox.

Yes, the assembly can, by the adoption of subsidiary motions to amend the pending revision, make the pending revision look much like the existing bylaws, but this is entirely beside the point. What 57:5 is telling you is that, by the adoption of such amendments, nothing whatsoever has happened to the existing bylaws, and nothing whatsoever can happen to the existing bylaws until the pending main motion to amend them is voted on.

To fully understand the significance of this, one must be familiar with the procedure which is used in the consideration of subsidiary motions to amend by substitution, discussed in 12:69-90. In these instances, what is sought to be amended is itself pending and can be amended during the process of consideration of the subsidiary motion to amend it.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/28/2023 at 6:56 AM, Guest Brad Johnson said:

My point is that if the assembly really wants to, the assembly *can* make the new version look like the old version with a few changes. I feel like this conversation is a variant on the ship of Theseus paradox.

Well, by turning right three times, you can effectively turn left.  That does not mean the two are the same, especially if there are NO LEFT TURN signs posted. 

If you get a ticket turning left, try to convince the judge that you should not be found guilty because, although you turned left, rather than turning right three times, you easily could have.

 

Edited May 29, 2023 at 12:46 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Atul Kapur]

On 5/28/2023 at 6:56 AM, Guest Brad Johnson said:

I feel like this conversation is a variant on the ship of Theseus paradox.

A revision is the complete opposite of Theseus. With a revision, you are building an entirely new ship while the original is still out there sailing the seas.

You may design the new ship to almost the exact same specifications as the current one, but you cannot change one rivet or plank on the current one. The other difference is that, while someone could present a design for the new one that looks exactly like the current one, with a revision you are allowed to change the proposed design from a duplicate of Theseus' ship to a steam-powered paddlewheel or even a nuclear-powered submarine. 

It's that lack of limitation that is the fundamental difference with a revision, no matter what the end-product looks like.

Edited May 29, 2023 at 09:02 PM by Atul Kapur

[Weldon Merritt]

On 5/29/2023 at 10:54 AM, Atul Kapur said:

A revision is the complete opposite of Theseus. With a revision, you are building an entirely new ship while the original is still out there sailing the seas.

Great analogy, Atul!. I like it!