By-Law changes

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

>>The chair ruled that the by-laws being voted upon were "new" by-laws and not an amendment to the existing by-laws<<

Sounds like it's time for a new chair.

Did anyone have the sense to appeal the chair's absurd rul"

[Guest Chris H]

What you voted on was a revision of the bylaws (the proposed document was offered as a subsitute for the current bylaws) and a 2/3 vote was required (RONR pp. 575-576). However, if a Point of Order was not raised at the time of the announcement the revis"

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

>>What you voted on was a revision of the bylaws<<

It wasn't a revision unless there was NOTICE of a revision. But that's beside the point."

[Guest Kenneth Gill]

I am not sure if anyone raised a Point of Order at that time since all hell broke loose as soon as the chair ruled on the motion and they very quickly adjourned the meeting. I think that they were more worried a fight was going to break out then if their"

[Guest Dan Honemann]

>>I am not sure if this is relevant to the matter.<<

No it's not.

Mr. Mountcastle's last post (aside from being rather misleading) is "beside the point", just as he says it is. :-)

"

[Guest Trina]

> The letter we received calling the meeting stated that the meeting was to vote on new by-laws and not on a revision to the current by-laws. I am not sure if this is relevant to the matter. <

'Unlike the case of amending or revising the by"

[Guest Chris H]

"I'm curious whether a point of order might still be timely if brought up first thing at the next meeting? Since no other business has intervened, and since one might argue that the meeting ended with adjournment due to emergency (fear of a fight)?&q"

[Guest JDStackpole]

I agree, particularly if someone (who knew enough to do so) hollered out "Point of Order" before the chair (improperly) declared the meeting adjourned.

Then the "point", whatever it was, would be pending when the meeting adj"

[Guest Chris H]

"Then the "point", whatever it was, would be pending when the meeting adjourned and would come up under Unfinished Business, p 347 (a)."

I would think that putting off the ruling on the Point of Order until Unfinished Business"

[Guest JDStackpole]

Could be, of course, but the standard order of business puts such pending motions under UB&GO."

[Guest Chris H]

So are you saying that a Point of Order made right before the meeting was adjourned can be ruled on in unfinished business at the next meeting and the timeliness requirement would still be met? "

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

The timeliness requirement refers to when the point of order is made (i.e. "promptly at the time of the breach"), not when it's ruled on."

[Guest Chris H]

So how would that work if the Point of Order is based on something that would affect business prior to when it is to be ruled on in Unfinished Business?"