Amendments to Bylaws

[terri]

If an amendment to bylaws was submitted and then withdrawn, can the same amendment be reinstated by another entity/person prior or during the House of Delegates (where and when voting occurs)?

[Josh Martin]

If an amendment to bylaws was submitted and then withdrawn, can the same amendment be reinstated by another entity/person prior or during the House of Delegates (where and when voting occurs)?

Yes, provided proper notice is given and any other requirements in your amendment process are followed.

[Dan Honemann]

Yes, provided proper notice is given and any other requirements in your amendment process are followed.

I gather that proper notice was given by the first guy.

[terri]

90 days is required to put an amendment before the House. The original Amendment was filed timely. However, they have now withdrawn it but others would like to debate and vote on the Amendment. Typically, the announcement of withdrawn amendments are made in the House at the time of presentation of the amendment. At that time, can someone move that the motion be reinstated?

[terri]

sorry.... move that the AMENDMENT be reinstated?

[Dan Honemann]

sorry.... move that the AMENDMENT be reinstated?

Just go ahead and move the amendment for which notice had been given.

[Gary c Tesser]

Just go ahead and move the amendment for which notice had been given.

What about this "withdrawn" business?

[Dan Honemann]

What about this "withdrawn" business?

It would appear that the purported withdrawal occurred at a time when it would be too late for it to be renewed, and thus is ineffective (RONR, 10th ed., p. 281, l. 20-24; p. 285. l. 25-29).

[terri]

Thanks. That's not what I wanted to hear but ..... there's always next year!

[Dan Honemann]

Thanks. That's not what I wanted to hear but ..... there's always next year!

If the amendment can apparently be considered this year, why the "... there's always next year!"?

[terri]

If the amendment can apparently be considered this year, why the "... there's always next year!"?

[terri]

You earlier stated "it would appear that the purported withdrawal occurred at a time when it would be too late for it to be renewed, and thus is ineffective (RONR, 10th ed., p. 281, l. 20-24; p. 285. l. 25-29)." Did I misinterpret?

[Dan Honemann]

You earlier stated "it would appear that the purported withdrawal occurred at a time when it would be too late for it to be renewed, and thus is ineffective (RONR, 10th ed., p. 281, l. 20-24; p. 285. l. 25-29)." Did I misinterpret?

Well, I said the withdrawal of notice appears to be ineffective, which means you don't need any further notice in order to move the amendment.

Is that any clearer?

[hmtcastle]

Well, I said the withdrawal of notice appears to be ineffective, which means you don't need any further notice in order to move the amendment.

Is that any clearer?

Though it seems to me like it was the motion that was withdrawn, not the notice.

[terri]

The Amendment was withdrawn by the sponsor. We want to reinstate it. How do we do that?

[Dan Honemann]

The Amendment was withdrawn by the sponsor. We want to reinstate it. How do we do that?

As I said before, just go ahead and move the amendment. This should work unless you have some rules that you haven't told us about.

[terri]

The only rule we have is a Parliamentarian that doesn't want this Amendment on the floor.

[Josh Martin]

The only rule we have is a Parliamentarian that doesn't want this Amendment on the floor.

If he's going to let that influence his interpretation of the rules, you need a new parliamentarian. In the meantime, just remember that the parliamentarian is only an adviser to the chair, and that the chair's rulings may be appealed, and you'll be fine.

[Gary c Tesser]

The only rule we have is a Parliamentarian that doesn't want this Amendment on the floor.

I think there's a used-dictionary salesman who can connect you with a Parliamentary Crocodile Referral Service, with which this so-called Parliamentarian would benefit from some intimate negotiation.

[Trina]

It would appear that the purported withdrawal occurred at a time when it would be too late for it to be renewed, and thus is ineffective (RONR, 10th ed., p. 281, l. 20-24; p. 285. l. 25-29).

The Amendment was withdrawn by the sponsor. We want to reinstate it. How do we do that?

The only rule we have is a Parliamentarian that doesn't want this Amendment on the floor.

If he's going to let that influence his interpretation of the rules, you need a new parliamentarian. In the meantime, just remember that the parliamentarian is only an adviser to the chair, and that the chair's rulings may be appealed, and you'll be fine.

In practical terms, though, it may be hard for Terri and friends to convince the assembly that it's fine to consider the amendment after all (as the original sponsor jumps up to say he withdrew 'his' amendment, and the parliamentarian chimes in to support that position). People tend to assume that motions and amendments are the property of the motion-maker, even when that isn't true parliamentarily. Mr. Honemann's citation, apropos as it is, is likely to have members shaking their heads in confusion with the 'too late to be renewed' reference. The people who want to bring the amendment before the assembly should really do some advance planning and education -- so that there are enough members to get an appeal underway if the chair rules against consideration of the amendment.

[Guest abcdave]

It seems to me, if you accept the notion that it's "too late" - then anyone could effectively prevent any amendments from being considered simply by proposing them first - and then withdrawing them after it's "too late" to give proper notice. True?

[terri]

Thanks for all the input. We are going to proceed as advised. I will do research on the appeal process. If anyone knows a good parliamentarian in the Reno, NV area, please let me know. Thanks again!

[Dan Honemann]

In practical terms, though, it may be hard for Terri and friends to convince the assembly that it's fine to consider the amendment after all (as the original sponsor jumps up to say he withdrew 'his' amendment, and the parliamentarian chimes in to support that position). People tend to assume that motions and amendments are the property of the motion-maker, even when that isn't true parliamentarily. Mr. Honemann's citation, apropos as it is, is likely to have members shaking their heads in confusion with the 'too late to be renewed' reference. The people who want to bring the amendment before the assembly should really do some advance planning and education -- so that there are enough members to get an appeal underway if the chair rules against consideration of the amendment.

But keep in mind that someone has to move adoption of the amendment, and if and when Terri does that, it's her amendment.

The only point being made in this thread is that, based solely upon what we have been told, the notice already given will suffice to enable Terri to move adoption of the amendment if its original sponsors do not.

[Josh Martin]

It seems to me, if you accept the notion that it's "too late" - then anyone could effectively prevent any amendments from being considered simply by proposing them first - and then withdrawing them after it's "too late" to give proper notice. True?

Yes, which is why the rule Mr. Honemann cited exists.

Thanks for all the input. We are going to proceed as advised. I will do research on the appeal process. If anyone knows a good parliamentarian in the Reno, NV area, please let me know. Thanks again!

Both the National Association of Parliamentarians and American Institute of Parliamentarians provide referral services. You could check with either (or both).

http://parliamentari.../instantprp.php

http://www.aipparl.o...amentarian.html

So far as I can determine, the closest PRPs to Reno are in Sacramento, California. Professional parliamentarians are often used to traveling, however, so I wouldn't be too concerned about proximity.

[Guest terri]

It would appear that the purported withdrawal occurred at a time when it would be too late for it to be renewed, and thus is ineffective (RONR, 10th ed., p. 281, l. 20-24; p. 285. l. 25-29).