Motions

[Guest Dale Nash]

Our organization requires that motions must be presented 30 days in advance to our AGM to be voted on and passed with a majority vote. If it comes from the floor the day of the AGM it must have a 75% acceptance to pass. The motion that was sent (before the 30 days) read "to amend Article 5 of the NBIAA Constitution", it should have read "to amend Article 5 of the By-Laws". We have been informed 5 days before the AGM that our motion is out of oredr. Is there a way that we can make an amemdment so it doesn not have to go to the floor and need a 75% acceptance?

[Chris Harrison]

Three questions:

1) Is the voting threshold rule located in the bylaws (or Constitution) or did someone just decide to come up with that rule?

2) Do you have a Constitution and bylaws or just one document?

3) What does the amendment provision in the bylaws say?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Our organization requires that motions must be presented 30 days in advance to our AGM to be voted on and passed with a majority vote.

If it comes from the floor the day of the AGM it must have a 75% acceptance to pass.

So the rule is:

With notice, majority vote.

Without notice, a 3/4 vote.

The motion that was sent (before the 30 days) read "to amend Article 5 of the NBIAA Constitution", it should have read "to amend Article 5 of the By-Laws".

We have been informed 5 days before the AGM that our motion is out of order.

Is there a way that we can make an amendment so it does not have to go to the floor and need a 75% acceptance?

Unknown.

You didn't mention the language being changed. That can be a factor.

So, I can imagine where the error is to be treated as a typographical error, and not treated as a violation of previous notice.

(And I can imagine many more scenarios where the error is a clear violation of previous notice with no wiggle room.)

• If it is treated as a typographical error, then there is no parliamentary problem with amending it.

• If it is treated as violation of previous notice, then you are stuck with the tougher requirement.

Ultimately, it is a judgment call:

• Is the error a typographical error only?

• Is the error such that the absentee members will have not been informed of the scope and purport of the amendment?

There is no way to tell, apriori, which judgment is more accurate, more fair.

Are the absentee members fully informed? Did they stay away from the meeting (i.e., ignore the seriousness of the amendment) for the wrong reason or for a dishonest reason?