jenniferh Posted June 1, 2010 at 06:07 PM Report Posted June 1, 2010 at 06:07 PM [The board plans to introduce a new policy which contravenes our bylaws. I intend to oppose this. My question is should the bylaws be amended prior to any vote taken on the new policy?
jstackpo Posted June 1, 2010 at 06:09 PM Report Posted June 1, 2010 at 06:09 PM Are you "opposing" the "new policy" or the change in bylaws to bring them, in advance, in concert (presumably) with the "new policy"?
Rob Elsman Posted June 1, 2010 at 06:21 PM Report Posted June 1, 2010 at 06:21 PM [The board plans to introduce a new policy which contravenes our bylaws. I intend to oppose this. My question is should the bylaws be amended prior to any vote taken on the new policy?A main motion that conflicts with the bylaws is an improper main motion that is inadmissible. RONR (10th ed.), p. 106, ll. 20-25.
jenniferh Posted June 1, 2010 at 06:28 PM Author Report Posted June 1, 2010 at 06:28 PM Are you "opposing" the "new policy" or the change in bylaws to bring them, in advance, in concert (presumably) with the "new policy"?I would oppose both. According to the Agenda for the meeting the new policy will be introduced. There is no motion on the agenda for amending the bylaws. Our by laws state These Bylaws may be amended at any meeting of the Congregation whose notice specifies that one or more amendments will be considered, provided that:14.1 Amendments have been proposed by: (a) the Board; ( the Council; © the Law Committee; or (d) any five voting members of the Congregation.14.2. The text of the proposed amendments was submitted in writing to the preceding meeting of the Congregation; and14.3. The vote to approve the amendments is carried by a two-thirds vote of the voting members present and voting.The congregation as a whole has not yet seen the agenda. What would be the best way to proceed in these circumstances.
Rob Elsman Posted June 1, 2010 at 06:36 PM Report Posted June 1, 2010 at 06:36 PM I would oppose both. According to the Agenda for the meeting the new policy will be introduced. There is no motion on the agenda for amending the bylaws. Our by laws state These Bylaws may be amended at any meeting of the Congregation whose notice specifies that one or more amendments will be considered, provided that:14.1 Amendments have been proposed by: (a) the Board; ( the Council; © the Law Committee; or (d) any five voting members of the Congregation.14.2. The text of the proposed amendments was submitted in writing to the preceding meeting of the Congregation; and14.3. The vote to approve the amendments is carried by a two-thirds vote of the voting members present and voting.The congregation as a whole has not yet seen the agenda. What would be the best way to proceed in these circumstances.A member of the assembly can raise a Point of Order, RONR (10th ed.), §23, pp. 240ff.
Tim Wynn Posted June 1, 2010 at 08:42 PM Report Posted June 1, 2010 at 08:42 PM The board plans to introduce a new policy which contravenes our bylaws.This is a dilatory plan, inconsistent with the rules. I intend to oppose this.You really don't need to oppose it, since your rules already do. Raising a point of order as Mr. Elsman suggests would be the best course of action.My question is should the bylaws be amended prior to any vote taken on the new policy?Yes... if you want the vote to have any meaning.
Rev Ed Posted June 1, 2010 at 08:51 PM Report Posted June 1, 2010 at 08:51 PM I quess I have a somewhat obvious question with regards to the policy: Is(are) the pertinent by-law(s) involved clearly written so that there is no doubt that the policy would be inconsistent with them?My point is the if the By-law(s) in question are in anyway ambiguous, then the organization may interrupt them as it pleases. However if the By-law(s) is(are) clear then the policy will likely be null and void.
hmtcastle Posted June 1, 2010 at 08:59 PM Report Posted June 1, 2010 at 08:59 PM I quess I have a somewhat obvious question with regards to the policy: Is(are) the pertinent by-law(s) involved clearly written so that there is no doubt that the policy would be inconsistent with them?My point is the if the By-law(s) in question are in anyway ambiguous, then the organization may interrupt them as it pleases. However if the By-law(s) is(are) clear then the policy will likely be null and void.I think that, when the original poster (OP) says that the proposed policy contravenes the bylaws, we should take her at her word.And I suspect you didn't mean to say "interrupt".
Kim Goldsworthy Posted June 1, 2010 at 09:35 PM Report Posted June 1, 2010 at 09:35 PM The board plans to introduce a new policy which contravenes our bylaws. I intend to oppose this. My question is should the bylaws be amended prior to any vote taken on the new policy?Should you amend the bylaws first?• No, if you are asking about strategy and tactics. (i.e., how to DEFEAT the motion.)• Yes, if you are asking if amending the bylaws is a necessary parliamentary step to aid ADOPTION of the new "policy".In general, when a motion is made which is impossible to obey, or which is to be obeyed at the expense of a superior rule (here, such as your bylaws), then the normal first step is to raise a Point of Order as soon as the motion is moved.Since you know of a "plan", I take it you know (a.) what the policy is: (b.) what the bylaws say; (c.) who is to be the chair for the meeting; (d.) who will be the mover.In such a case, I recommend that you cut to the chase, and consult your chair TODAY, RIGHT NOW, and point this out to your chair, as a prophylactic measure.For example, say, "Mr. Chairman, did you know that Col. Mustard plans to make a motion 'to raise dues to $11' next meeting? Did you know that the dues are fixed in our bylaws at $10? Did you know that a motion to raise dues which is controlled by the bylaws is out of order, because the motion, if adopted, will be null and void? Did you know that the proper way of raising dues would be to invoke the method of amendment of our bylaws, and change the language in the relevant article?"Why wait for the meeting (why wait for 'an accident to happen') when you can prevent the 'car crash' with a little 'preventive maintenance'?
jenniferh Posted June 1, 2010 at 09:59 PM Author Report Posted June 1, 2010 at 09:59 PM Should you amend the bylaws first?• No, if you are asking about strategy and tactics. (i.e., how to DEFEAT the motion.)• Yes, if you are asking if amending the bylaws is a necessary parliamentary step to aid ADOPTION of the new "policy".In general, when a motion is made which is impossible to obey, or which is to be obeyed at the expense of a superior rule (here, such as your bylaws), then the normal first step is to raise a Point of Order as soon as the motion is moved.Since you know of a "plan", I take it you know (a.) what the policy is: (b.) what the bylaws say; (c.) who is to be the chair for the meeting; (d.) who will be the mover.In such a case, I recommend that you cut to the chase, and consult your chair TODAY, RIGHT NOW, and point this out to your chair, as a prophylactic measure.For example, say, "Mr. Chairman, did you know that Col. Mustard plans to make a motion 'to raise dues to $11' next meeting? Did you know that the dues are fixed in our bylaws at $10? Did you know that a motion to raise dues which is controlled by the bylaws is out of order, because the motion, if adopted, will be null and void? Did you know that the proper way of raising dues would be to invoke the method of amendment of our bylaws, and change the language in the relevant article?"Why wait for the meeting (why wait for 'an accident to happen') when you can prevent the 'car crash' with a little 'preventive maintenance'?The Board has already been told that a bylaw change would have to be made, but they appear to be ignoring this information.
Guest Guest Posted June 1, 2010 at 10:09 PM Report Posted June 1, 2010 at 10:09 PM So the new policy would contravene the curent bylaws. Understood.If the bylaws are amended to allow the new policy, the previous policy is null and void.But to change the bylaws, the rules of section 14 need to be followed.
hmtcastle Posted June 1, 2010 at 10:12 PM Report Posted June 1, 2010 at 10:12 PM I think "Guest" should come up with a slightly more descriptive name.
jenniferh Posted June 2, 2010 at 01:19 AM Author Report Posted June 2, 2010 at 01:19 AM The Board has already been told that a bylaw change would have to be made, but they appear to be ignoring this information.I have just been informed that someone will be introducing by law amendment for the first reading at this meeting, so it cannot be passed until the next meeting. The first the congregation will hear of this will be at the meeting. Strategically speaking we have a better chance of defeating a bylaw amendment that will require a 2/3 vote majority. I will raise a point of order at the meeting because I do no think that they can vote on this until the bylaw is changed. We can also try to remove the offending potions form the policy at the meeting. I am not an expert on Roberts rules , I really appreciate all the input i am receiving.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.