Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle Posted April 8, 2010 at 09:56 PM Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 at 09:56 PM >>Our bylaws can only be changed once a year, last month was the date, is there any way to change an item to clairify it.<< No. >> with the change it would mean the same as it does now<< Then why change i" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dan Posted April 8, 2010 at 10:45 PM Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 at 10:45 PM right now for training it says you are credited 2 hrs for one night of your time, as it stands hour is figuretivly speaking, it shoud say 2 credits" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gary c Tesser Posted April 9, 2010 at 05:38 AM Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 at 05:38 AM You can't change the bylaws when you cannot change them. If you want to tell everyone that two hours is really two credits, and if that works, the parliamentary police will not show up and spank you. (They're busy spanking me.) Be careful stepp" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dan Posted May 3, 2010 at 09:36 PM Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 at 09:36 PM I wasn't 100% clear in my original question. The bylaw that contains the questional verbage will be voted on this month. From what I understand you can amend the amendment if it stas within the original scope. If this is true and we can amend the amend" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dan Posted May 3, 2010 at 09:37 PM Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 at 09:37 PM One problem, there is one other bylaw with the same verbage, but the one we can possibly amend controls the other. Any thoughts o wise ones." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob Elsman Posted May 3, 2010 at 09:41 PM Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 at 09:41 PM If previous notice of the amendment to the bylaws is *required*, then the amendment is amendable, but only within the scope of the notice given. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 295, ll. 18-23; pp. 576, 577." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dan Posted May 3, 2010 at 10:53 PM Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 at 10:53 PM how about the amendment affecting the other paragragh the is not up for amendment, but is controlled by the one eing changed" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John M. Posted May 6, 2010 at 02:23 AM Report Share Posted May 6, 2010 at 02:23 AM >>how about the amendment affecting the other paragragh the is not up for amendment, but is controlled by the one eing changed<< It's hard to say without seeing the Bylaws, but I'd say as a general rule, that if this is something as s" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.