Moderating debate regarding contradictory bylaws or constitutional statements.

[Guest Jonathan]

How should a moderator proceed when presented with a motion based on one bylaw or constitutional statement, when another later bylaw or constitutional statement contradicts the first?

For example, one bylaw says that in such and such a circumstance an ecclesiastical body may or may not seek help from so and so, while a few pages later another bylaw demands that in the same circumstance the body shall seek help from so and so... What does the moderator do when such matters are presented for discussion and a vote but there is disagreement over the freedom the bylaws allow?  Please do not answer "amend you bylaws"

[Joshua Katz]

In RONR, there are a set of principles of bylaw interpretation that may help you resolve the problem, and then you can rule on any points of order (or raise them yourself) accordingly. If those rules do not resolve the problem in your view, you can, instead of ruling on the point of order (assuming one is raised, or, again, you can raise it yourself), put the question to the assembly.

I know we're not supposed to say it, but...

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/7/2023 at 9:55 AM, Guest Jonathan said:

How should a moderator proceed when presented with a motion based on one bylaw or constitutional statement, when another later bylaw or constitutional statement contradicts the first?

For example, one bylaw says that in such and such a circumstance an ecclesiastical body may or may not seek help from so and so, while a few pages later another bylaw demands that in the same circumstance the body shall seek help from so and so... What does the moderator do when such matters are presented for discussion and a vote but there is disagreement over the freedom the bylaws allow?  Please do not answer "amend you bylaws"

There are two separate issues here.  If there is disagreement over what the bylaws should allow, that's all well and good, and can be decided by adopting or rejecting an appropriate amendment.

There is no rule that a proposed amendment can't conflict with the existing bylaws. If there were, it would prevent most amendments, since changing the language usually conflicts with what it said before, otherwise, why change it.  But the chair should be free to point out that adopting an amendment in one place which contradicts a similar provision elsewhere would create an absurdity in the bylaws. 

The chair can and should guide the assembly in crafting an amendment to the proposal that would either accept the new way by its adoption, or keep the old way by its rejection.  If this requires making two changes in the bylaws instead of one, then the proposal should be amended to include both changes, which will then pass together or fail together.

Ultimately, I suppose the assembly has the right to adopt absurd bylaws, but the chair does not need to stand by silently and watch it happen.

[Joshua Katz]

On 11/7/2023 at 3:27 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

There are two separate issues here.  If there is disagreement over what the bylaws should allow, that's all well and good, and can be decided by adopting or rejecting an appropriate amendment.

 

You and I read this question very differently. Hopefully OP can clarify who is right.

[Richard Brown]

On 11/7/2023 at 2:27 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

There are two separate issues here.  If there is disagreement over what the bylaws should allow, that's all well and good, and can be decided by adopting or rejecting an appropriate amendment.

There is no rule that a proposed amendment can't conflict with the existing bylaws. If there were, it would prevent most amendments, since changing the language usually conflicts with what it said before, otherwise, why change it.  But the chair should be free to point out that adopting an amendment in one place which contradicts a similar provision elsewhere would create an absurdity in the bylaws. 

The chair can and should guide the assembly in crafting an amendment to the proposal that would either accept the new way by its adoption, or keep the old way by its rejection.  If this requires making two changes in the bylaws instead of one, then the proposal should be amended to include both changes, which will then pass together or fail together.

Ultimately, I suppose the assembly has the right to adopt absurd bylaws, but the chair does not need to stand by silently and watch it happen.

I would point out first that the OP asked us not to suggest amending the bylaws.

I will also point out that the OP is not discussing a conflict between a current bylaw provision and a proposed amendment, but rather two existing bylaw provisions that seem to conflict with each other.  No amendment is at issue. Interpretation of the existing bylaws is the issue.

I believe I am reading the OP's post the same way that Mr. Katz is.

[Richard Brown]

On 11/7/2023 at 8:55 AM, Guest Jonathan said:

How should a moderator proceed when presented with a motion based on one bylaw or constitutional statement, when another later bylaw or constitutional statement contradicts the first?

For example, one bylaw says that in such and such a circumstance an ecclesiastical body may or may not seek help from so and so, while a few pages later another bylaw demands that in the same circumstance the body shall seek help from so and so... What does the moderator do when such matters are presented for discussion and a vote but there is disagreement over the freedom the bylaws allow?  Please do not answer "amend you bylaws"

If I understand your statement of facts and your question correctly, the normal way of resolving the conflict is as follows:  a member would make a motion to "do such and such".  Another member would raise a point of order that the proposed motion conflicts with the bylaws (preferably with a specific bylaw provision).  The chair will rule on whether the motion is in order or conflicts with the bylaws.  The assembly can accept the chair's ruling or two members can appeal from it (one to appeal and another to second the appeal). If the chair's ruling is appealed to the assembly,  It will require a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair. The chair's ruling is sustained by a tie vote.

As an alternative, rather than the chair making a ruling, the chair can do as Mr. Katz mentioned and "punt" the question to the assembly which will decide by majority vote whether the proposed motion is in order.

[Atul Kapur]

On 11/7/2023 at 9:55 AM, Guest Jonathan said:

For example, one bylaw says that in such and such a circumstance an ecclesiastical body may or may not seek help from so and so [1], while a few pages later another bylaw demands that in the same circumstance the body shall seek help from so and so [2]

I'm not certain that I see a conflict in this example. You may seek help from "so and so" 1 and must seek help from "so and so" 2. 

If they're different, then seek help from 2 (satisfying second provision) and possibly seek 1's help, too.

If they're the same, then just seek help from "so and so."

Edited November 7, 2023 at 10:00 PM by Atul Kapur

[Richard Brown]

On 11/7/2023 at 8:55 AM, Guest Jonathan said:

How should a moderator proceed when presented with a motion based on one bylaw or constitutional statement, when another later bylaw or constitutional statement contradicts the first?

For example, one bylaw says that in such and such a circumstance an ecclesiastical body may or may not seek help from so and so, while a few pages later another bylaw demands that in the same circumstance the body shall seek help from so and so... What does the moderator do when such matters are presented for discussion and a vote but there is disagreement over the freedom the bylaws allow?  Please do not answer "amend you bylaws"

Are both references to "so and so" to the same person or entity?  Or is each "so and so" a different person or entity?

 

[Richard Brown]

On 11/7/2023 at 3:58 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I'm not certain that I see a conflict in this example. You may seek help from "so and so" 1 and must seek help from "so and so" 2. 

If they're different, then seek help from 2 (satisfying second provision) and possibly seek 1's help, too.

If they're the same, then just seek help from "so and so."

I agree with Dr. Kapur's response. I'm not convinced that there is an actual conflict.

[Gary Novosielski]

And if there is a conflict, then there is a problem with the bylaws.

The question then resembles:   

There is a pipe that burst and my basement is getting flooded.  What shall I do?  

Please do not suggest turning off the water.

Edited November 8, 2023 at 05:14 AM by Gary Novosielski