Consistantly returning Proposed changes to committee

[Guest Danimal]

Our organization has a Consitution & By Laws committee which was charged with proposing updates & changes to the document.

The changes were sent to the membership as prescribed by the CBL.

At the meeting a motion was made to send the proposed changes back to committee. The motion passed.

At the subsequent meeting of the committee, the following motion was made: "I move that the committee rise and return its previous report."

We are expecting another atttempt to return the proposed changes back to committee in an effort to delay adoption.

What can be done to stop the repeated return of changes to the committee?

[hmtcastle]

What can be done to stop the repeated return of changes to the committee?

Defeat the motion to do so.

[Guest carconsultant]

Defeat the motion to do so.

This is an interesting question. Besides defeating the motion, which is an obvious answer, is there anything else to prevent this situation? It seems that there could be a lot of back-and-forth if there is not. Isn't there a way to prevent a motion which isn't in the best interests of the group or is preventing progress of business?

[David A Foulkes]

This is an interesting question. Besides defeating the motion, which is an obvious answer, is there anything else to prevent this situation? It seems that there could be a lot of back-and-forth if there is not. Isn't there a way to prevent a motion which isn't in the best interests of the group or is preventing progress of business?

As one option, a motion to Discharge a Committee, if adopted, would take "the matter out of a committee's hands...and the assembly {that appointed it} itself can consider it." (p. 299 l. 30ff). Continue reading for further details and requirements of the motion.

[jstackpo]

Well, if a majority (the poster didn't suggest how large a majority) wants to keep sending the proposals back for "review" by the committee (a "nice" way of not adopting them, seems to me), it is unlikely that the friends of the proposals could muster a 2/3 vote to adopt them.

[Dan Honemann]

We are expecting another atttempt to return the proposed changes back to committee in an effort to delay adoption.

This makes no sense.

If the assembly is willing to adopt the changes proposed by the committee it will do so. If it refers them back to the committee, it must be because it is unwilling to consider them as proposed and wants the committee to do a better job.

[David A Foulkes]

Our organization has a Consitution & By Laws committee which was charged with proposing updates & changes to the document.

The changes were sent to the membership as prescribed by the CBL.

At the meeting a motion was made to send the proposed changes back to committee. The motion passed.

At the subsequent meeting of the committee, the following motion was made: "I move that the committee rise and return its previous report."

We are expecting another atttempt to return the proposed changes back to committee in an effort to delay adoption.

What can be done to stop the repeated return of changes to the committee?

I may be off course on this, but the committee is only going to report back to the membership. It's still up to the membership to vote whether to adopt any of the committee's recommendations regarding bylaw amendments. If the membership doesn't like what it's hearing from the committee, why don't they simply defeat any motion(s) arising out of its report, and be done with it?

I guess the real question behind all this is: Why does the membership not want to "accept" the CBL's report? By "delay adoption", it sounds to me like they don't like what their hearing from the committee. So.... what IS the problem?

[George Mervosh]

This makes no sense.

If the assembly is willing to adopt the changes proposed by the committee it will do so. If it refers them back to the committee, it must be because it is unwilling to consider them as proposed and wants the committee to do a better job.

Agreed. What the assembly might consider is referring back a motion for them to prepare a revision (p. 575). When a revision is presented the door is wide open for amendments and a final document that the assembly can agree on might develop. This depends on how extensive the changes are, but if a revision is ordered, it might reduce the likelihood of another referral.

[Josh Martin]

Isn't there a way to prevent a motion which isn't in the best interests of the group or is preventing progress of business?

If you don't have a majority on your side (which you don't seem to), you can't do much of anything. It's up to the group, by majority vote, to decide what its best interest are.

It might be, however, that the majority simply isn't aware of its options. Suggest that the assembly give instructions to the committee, or appoint new members to the committee, or amend the committee's recommendation, or vote the recommendation down.. There's no legitimate reason for a majority to simply "stall," as the majority will have control over the disposition of the motion.