Ratifying consitutional amendments

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

If your question relates to your previous posts, it's best to continue those posts instead of starting a new one."

[Guest ET]

My previous post relates to resolution/ratification/AGM. Maybe I should have titled this constitutional amendments and its ratification. I think you were also the one who told me to not mix my questions by creating different threads for different topics"

[Guest JDStackpole]

Averting any (potential) flame wars...

With no adopted Parl authority, you are sort of on your own, although you are bound by the "common parliamentary law", my lawyer friends tell me.

The best description around of that ""

[Guest ET]

I don't have the book, so can you briefly state what p.562 is saying? Will be much appreciated."

[Guest JDStackpole]

Amendments adoptable by either...

2/3 vote with previous notice;

or

majority of ENTIRE membership (no notice needed)

The latter is hard to come by unless most all of the members regularly show up. "

[Guest ET]

I assume the 2/3 vote is 2/3 of members present. Thank you for the clarification. It is very helpful for our situation."

[Guest JDStackpole]

Wrong assumption!

"2/3 vote", per the definition in RONR, is 2/3 of those actually voting. You disregard abstentions - i.e., those embers who do not choose to vote."

[Guest ET]

Thank you for correcting my assumption. How long should the previous notice be for the 2/3 rule to apply?"

[Guest Nancy N.]

From p. 116.

The notice must be included in the call of the meeting, or announced at the previous meeting if that meeting is within a "quarterly time interval" (of a year). "The call of a meeting is generally mailed to all members"

[Guest ET]

Thanks for the reminder. I'll relay your message to our board. In the meantime, I thought this forum is the best source of information for people like us who don't have a copy of the book. This is my first time to be involved in the council of this org"

[Guest Nancy N.]

Not to quibble ...

Unless you have _*very*_ strange rules -- unlikely since you seem not to have any -- there is no ratifying involved here. The amendments are adopted (or "passed," or some similar synonynm) and that's the end of it. "

[Guest ET]

I am talking about ratification of future amendments where one of the amendments is about spelling out the voting requirement for ratifying amendments to our constitutions. Are we not in a catch 22 if we want to pass this amendment for ratification? I don"

[Guest Nancy N.]

ET, this forum might very well be the best source of information for those of you who don't have the book, but often it's pretty clear that no forum can be an adequate substitute for having and using the book. Clearly, you need the book now, and it's ove"

[Guest ET]

Thank you. I get the message. So, I will stop asking."

[Guest Nancy N]

ET. That wasn't the message.

I'm guessing -- and I hope ET is still reading, and will clarify (though he says he won't ask, which might be regrettable) -- that signal examples of his (her?) usse of "ratify" is exemplified here:

[Guest ET]

I am willing to clarify what I am saying and asking in my original question. Our constitution is silent on how amendments to the constitution can be passed/approved/ratified/whatever is the right term, to make the amendment become the rule for next time. "

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

>>I thought this forum is the best source of information for people like us who don't have a copy of the book.<<

Not exactly.

But at some point, and the sooner the better, you'll want to get The Book. Because this forum will "

[Guest Dan Honemann]

ET, your questions were completely answered in the first several responses.

Forget Nancy's original response and all that follows. "

[Guest ET]

Okay, I have obtained a online pdf copy of the book. I have read Article XI Miscellaneous section 64-Quorum and section 68-Amendments of Constitutions, By-laws and Rules of Order. Help me understand these sections, since it is trying to explain different"

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

Well, you've got a copy of an older version of the book but it's not The Book that's supported by this forum.

In any event, if I recall the original question, the bottom line is that if you can't get a quorum you can't amend your bylaws."

[Guest ET]

Thank you for that advice. Per previous response I got, we will have to use the rule of 2/3 of present attendance, in that case, in the absence of any specific rules in our constitution and based on previous practice on what is quorum in our organization"

[Guest ET]

If our quorum is determined by previous practice, we can get a quorum (ie. whoever is present). If we can do that, then we can default to the RONR rule of 2/3 of members present as the voting requirements for passing/approving/accepting/ratifying the pro"

[Guest Dan Honemann]

>>If we can do that, then we can default to the RONR rule of 2/3 of members present as the voting requirements for passing/approving/accepting/ratifying the proposed amendments,<<

How many times do you have to be told that you've got "

[Guest ET]

Sorry, I mean 2/3 of those voting per response from JDStockpole Date/Time: 3/27/2010 8:03:00 PM. which says: "2/3 vote", per the definition in RONR, is 2/3 of those actually voting. You disregard abstentions - i.e., those embers who do not choos"

[Guest Nancy N]

ET, you got that right. The quorum is the remaining bugbear."