Using filling a blank to amend bylaws at a convention

[Guest DetroitWHS]

For consideration at a convention, four alternative compositions of the voting members were submitted; all registered members, delegates from the subordinate chapters, delegates from the subordinate chapters and the elected officers of the international council, and delegates from the subordinate chapters, the elected officers of the international council, and the past international presidents.  To save time from voting on each proposal individually, could it be recommended to create a blank and fill in all the alternatives to consider them all together?  

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/20/2024 at 3:18 PM, Guest DetroitWHS said:

For consideration at a convention, four alternative compositions of the voting members were submitted; all registered members, delegates from the subordinate chapters, delegates from the subordinate chapters and the elected officers of the international council, and delegates from the subordinate chapters, the elected officers of the international council, and the past international presidents.  To save time from voting on each proposal individually, could it be recommended to create a blank and fill in all the alternatives to consider them all together?  

No.

[Rob Elsman]

Choosing among alternative main motions a la carte, so to speak, violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion can be pending at a time.  RONR (12th ed.) 5:4.

[Guest DetroitWHS]

Not sure if it would change things, but these were submitted as proposed amendments to the bylaws, and the bylaws committee will be presenting these during their report.

Is there a more efficient way to have these presented or is it required to have each one presented individually with the delegates deciding "yes or no" before moving to the next alternative?

[Joshua Katz]

A motion to amend the bylaws, despite its similarity in name to the subsidiary motion Amend, is a main motion, and so only one such motion can be immediately pending at a time. Therefore, what you propose is out of order. For what it's worth, I don't see how you could sequence bylaw amendments to be both time-efficient and fair. In fact, since there's nothing keeping you from adopting all of them, I don't see how you save time. You'd still need to consider them all. This is very unlike, say, a motion to set a value for dues, where all the proposals are numbers, and when you reach majority support, you stop.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/21/2024 at 7:40 AM, Guest DetroitWHS said:

Not sure if it would change things, but these were submitted as proposed amendments to the bylaws, and the bylaws committee will be presenting these during their report.

Is there a more efficient way to have these presented or is it required to have each one presented individually with the delegates deciding "yes or no" before moving to the next alternative?

Take a look at RONR (12th ed.,) 57:6-9 and see if this is of any help.

[Josh Martin]

On 3/20/2024 at 2:18 PM, Guest DetroitWHS said:

For consideration at a convention, four alternative compositions of the voting members were submitted; all registered members, delegates from the subordinate chapters, delegates from the subordinate chapters and the elected officers of the international council, and delegates from the subordinate chapters, the elected officers of the international council, and the past international presidents.  To save time from voting on each proposal individually, could it be recommended to create a blank and fill in all the alternatives to consider them all together?  

Could you clarify:

• When you refer to the composition of the voting members, do you mean the voting members of the convention? Or some other body?
  • If this does refer to the composition of the voting members of the convention, does the amendment include a proviso that it does not take effect until some later time (such as, for example, upon adjournment of the convention)?
• What is the current composition of the voting members of the body in question?

[DetroitWHS]

1). Yes, I was referring to the voting members of the convention.  There is a proviso that the amendment wouldn't take effect until the next convention.

2)  The current composition of the voting members of the convention are the delegates from the chapters (each chapter gets one), and the elected officers of the council.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/5/2024 at 6:53 PM, DetroitWHS said:

1). Yes, I was referring to the voting members of the convention.  There is a proviso that the amendment wouldn't take effect until the next convention.

2)  The current composition of the voting members of the convention are the delegates from the chapters (each chapter gets one), and the elected officers of the council.

Thank you for this additional information. As I understand it, the four options before the convention are as follows:

• All registered members (I would note that this one may require some additional amendments to the bylaws, as this amendment will effectively convert this from a convention of delegates into a membership meeting)
• Delegates from the subordinate chapters
• Delegates from the subordinate chapters and the elected officers of the international council
• Delegates from the subordinate chapters, the elected officers of the international council, and the past international presidents

No vote should be taken on the option "Delegates from the subordinate chapters and the elected officers of the international council," because that's the current system, and therefore is automatically the option you'll follow if all the proposed changes are rejected. So we actually only have three proposed amendments.

RONR provides the following on this question:

"If notice is given of several amendments which conflict so that all cannot be given effect, the chair should arrange them in a logical order, much as in the case of filling blanks (12), generally taking the least inclusive amendment first and the most inclusive last so that the last one adopted is given effect. That arrangement of the amendments can be altered by the assembly; a motion to rearrange the amendments requires a second, is not debatable, is amendable, and requires a majority vote. An affirmative vote adopting such an arrangement is not subject to a motion to Reconsider, nor may a later, separate amendment be offered as a substitute for a pending one." RONR (12th ed.) 57:6

Based upon this advice, my recommendation would be to vote on the proposed amendments regarding composition in the following order, with a yes/no vote being taken on each one, and each amendment will itself be subject to debate and amendment:

• Delegates from the subordinate chapters
• Delegates from the subordinate chapters, the elected officers of the international council, and the past international presidents
• All registered members

This seems to me to be the "least inclusive amendment first and the most inclusive last," and I believe it is the order the chair should propose. If the assembly wishes, the assembly may rearrange this order, by majority vote.

At the end of the day, one of the following will most likely happen:

• One of the amendments will be adopted, in which case that amendment will take effect.
• Multiple amendments will be adopted, in case the amendment adopted last will take effect.
• None of the amendments will be adopted, in which case the "status quo" will remain in effect.

Finally, if the "all registered members" option is adopted, I expect this will require some additional amendments to the bylaws. For example, references to a "convention" should be changed to "annual meeting of the membership" or some such, and there will likely be a lot of sections pertaining to delegates which are now obsolete.

[Guest DetroitWHS]

Thank you for the detailed response Mr. Martin.

Given that it would be a 2/3 vote to amend the bylaws, wouldn't the vote for each proposed amendment be 2/3 instead of yes/no?

[Josh Martin]

On 4/8/2024 at 5:57 AM, Guest DetroitWHS said:

Given that it would be a 2/3 vote to amend the bylaws, wouldn't the vote for each proposed amendment be 2/3 instead of yes/no?

Yes, of course the required vote for adoption for each proposed amendment would be 2/3, and I did not intend to suggest otherwise. You still vote "yes" or "no" on each amendment - it's just that you'll need at least 2/3 of the votes to be "yes" for an amendment to be adopted.

My intent with the "yes/no" language was to clarify that each amendment is voted on as an independent motion, with a vote taken individually on each amendment, as opposed to voting on all of the options simultaneously and members voting for the option of their choice. I apologize for the lack of clarity.

Edited April 8, 2024 at 01:29 PM by Josh Martin