Amendments to Bylaws

[Guest terri]

Mr. Honemann, our parliamentarian overruled your decision. Unfortunately, our presiding officer allowed the parliamentarian to make the rulings. It was a mess! But I thank you all for your advice and counsel.

[David A Foulkes]

Mr. Honemann, our parliamentarian overruled your decision.

[hmtcastle]

Mr. Honemann, our parliamentarian overruled your decision.

One is reminded, if one is of a certain age, of a margarine commercial from the 70s:

It's not nice to overrule The Wrathful One.

[Tim Wynn]

Mr. Honemann, our parliamentarian overruled your decision.

Oh, looks like there's a new sheriff in town.

I need this parliamentarian's phone number, in case Mr. H starts up with me.

[Josh Martin]

Mr. Honemann, our parliamentarian overruled your decision. Unfortunately, our presiding officer allowed the parliamentarian to make the rulings. It was a mess! But I thank you all for your advice and counsel.

Did you appeal?

[Guest terri]

Yes, we appealed but the Paliamentarian ignored the appeal and moved on to the next amendment. The presiding officer said/did nothing. We were stunned! We're getting an AV disc of the House of Delegate session in case anyone wants a "what not to do" example.

[David A Foulkes]

Yes, we appealed but the Paliamentarian ignored the appeal and moved on to the next amendment. The presiding officer said/did nothing. We were stunned! We're getting an AV disc of the House of Delegate session in case anyone wants a "what not to do" example.

As well you should have been. The parliamentarian should not have made the ruling, the chair should have. And the chair's decision (not the parliamentarian's) would be appealed.

Seems like a little house-cleaning might be in order. When are elections?????

[mpmarus]

Terri, your location tells me we are not in the same assembly; however, I have a similar problem (with a twist).

2 meetings ago, a member of the Executive Board proposed a Bylaw Amendment. Proper notice was given, the amendment was under consideration and being debated on the floor when this Board member (who happens to be our Parliamentarian) proposed that we table the amendment so that more research could be done on the issues involved. The motion to table passed by voice vote and the amendment was not dealt with further that day.

My understanding is that a tabled motion must be "taken from the table" if not within the same session, then in the next session.

Yesterday was a specially-called meeting of the assembly. There was a quorum as well as an agenda item for "any other business that could regularly be considered by the committee". After other business had been concluded, a member rose and attempted to move to take the previous amendment off the table. The Parliamentarian (who was chairing the committee in the regular chair's absence) declared him out of order and entertained a motion to adjourn. The reasoning announced by the Parliamentarian was 1) we were in a specially-called meeting and thus could not conduct regular business, and 2) the motion to table included reference to research (that has not been done and many feel will not be done) and thus the amendment cannot be considered until the research results are presented.

I am past rightness and wrongness of what has gone before. My question is, how do we get this amendment considered? Or is it dead and we can simply resubmit?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

2 meetings ago, a member of the Executive Board proposed a Bylaw Amendment.

Possible red herring.

Your phrase, "A member of the executive board," might be your way of saying, "... the body who amends our bylaws is our executive board."

If you had meant that the general membership is the body who is the proper authority to amend your bylaws, then the added information, "... member of [the] Board ..." might throw off the reader (like me) who is thinking, "Okay, next board meeting, there exists previous notice given to amend the bylaws."

If the body who is authorized to amend your bylaws is the general membership, then I must ask you if your amendment process demands that the proposal come from a board member.

If not, then the extra info is just misleading. - i.e., there is no board involvement.

Proper notice was given, the amendment was under consideration and being debated on the floor when this Board member (who happens to be our Parliamentarian) proposed that we table the amendment so that more research could be done on the issues involved. The motion to table passed by voice vote and the amendment was not dealt with further that day.

"This board member"?

So, the meeting was a BOARD MEETING, and not a GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING?

This is important information, based your next refernce to a "committee," previously unmentioned.

My understanding is that a tabled motion must be "taken from the table" if not within the same session, then in the next session.

Within limits, asssuming certain conditions, "Yes."

Beware of details which would turn that generic answer to "No."

Yesterday was a specially-called meeting of the assembly.

"Assembly"?

Not the board?

... hmmmmmmmmmm ...

There was a quorum as well as an agenda item for "any other business that could regularly be considered by the committee".

"Committee"?

Not the board?

Not the general membership?

Not the assembly?

Double "Hmmmmmmmmmmm"!

After other business had been concluded, a member rose and attempted to move to take the previous amendment off the table.

The Parliamentarian (who was chairing the committee in the regular chair's absence) declared him out of order and entertained a motion to adjourn.

The reasoning announced by the Parliamentarian was

1) we were in a specially-called meeting and thus could not conduct regular business, and

2) the motion to table included reference to research (that has not been done and many feel will not be done) and thus the amendment cannot be considered until the research results are presented.

Many mistakes here.

Your parliamentarian is no parliamentarian, if you quoted him accurately.

My question is, how do we get this amendment considered?

Or is it dead and we can simply resubmit?

I guess, based on your "parliamentarian's" opinion, is that you must wait for this so-called "research", whatever that is.

I think you are not asking us, "Where did we go wrong?"

I think your last question is asking, "Ignoring all the errors, what step can be taken NOW to get that bylaw amendment back to some kind of active status for real action?"

I don't have a quickie answer when the parliamentary situation is all xxxxx -muddled- up, (excuse my French).

[mpmarus]

Thank you for your time.