Revising of by-laws

[ggarland]

I have recently purchased Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. In the charts on page 6 it seems to indicate that when presenting changes to existing by-laws, the changes can be amended after they are presented. Is this correct? In my previous version of Robert's Rules of Order (an old version) it said they could not be amended.

If they can be amended what is the procedure, and how is it handled by the chair?

Thanks.

[Chris Harrison]

I have recently purchased Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. In the charts on page 6 it seems to indicate that when presenting changes to existing by-laws, the changes can be amended after they are presented. Is this correct? In my previous version of Robert's Rules of Order (an old version) it said they could not be amended.

If they can be amended what is the procedure, and how is it handled by the chair?

Thanks.

Yes. Proposed bylaw amendments can be amended as long as the scope of notice was followed. See RONR pp. 576-577 which discusses scope of notice specifically and pp. 573-581 which discusses amending the bylaws in general.

[Guest algc]

I have recently purchased Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. In the charts on page 6 it seems to indicate that when presenting changes to existing by-laws, the changes can be amended after they are presented. Is this correct? In my previous version of Robert's Rules of Order (an old version) it said they could not be amended.

If they can be amended what is the procedure, and how is it handled by the chair?

Thanks.

[ggarland]

Thank you. Let me pose a scenario and please tell me if this would be proper:

Changes to the by-laws were presented in a previous meeting.

Chair: Proposed changes to the by-laws have been presented, do I have a move that these proposed changes become part of the by-laws?

Member 1: I move the proposed changes become part of the by-laws.

Member 2: I second.

Chair: I have a move and second that the proposed changes become part of the by-laws, is their any discussion?

Member 3: I move to amend the changes by striking out the first paragraph and replacing it with "........".

Now, if this is correct procedure up to this point, does the amendment presented by Member 3 have to be received and then can only be voted on in the next meeting?

If this isn't correct procedure, can you give me an idea of how it should be handled?

Thanks again.

[Guest algc]

in that section of RRO can you please tell me how many days notice are required for a meeting to change bylaws?

[ggarland]

Also, can you define, "scope of notice"?

Thanks again.

[Josh Martin]

Now, if this is correct procedure up to this point, does the amendment presented by Member 3 have to be received and then can only be voted on in the next meeting?

If this isn't correct procedure, can you give me an idea of how it should be handled?

No, the amendment does not require additional notice. It may be handled like any other amendment.

in that section of RRO can you please tell me how many days notice are required for a meeting to change bylaws?

Your Bylaws should specify this.

Also, can you define, "scope of notice"?

The common example is that if a member moves to increase dues from $5 to $10, an amendment to change $10 to $7 would be in order, but an amendment to change it to $20 or $2 would not be, as this exceeds the scope of the notice. Certainly this is a simplistic example and in other cases it becomes a bit of a judgment call.

[Chris Harrison]

Now, if this is correct procedure up to this point, does the amendment presented by Member 3 have to be received and then can only be voted on in the next meeting?

If this isn't correct procedure, can you give me an idea of how it should be handled?

Thanks again.

Proposed bylaw amendments can only be properly amended at the meeting if scope of notice is met and whether that happened is something you all will need to decide for yourselves.

Also, can you define, "scope of notice"?

Thanks again.

The pages I cited (576-577) discusses scope of notice. Also, see RONR pp. 562-563.

[ggarland]

Thank you very much. That has solved a great problem for me. I have one more question if you don't mind.

Our existing by-laws do not specify a means for removing an officer from office other than during regular elections when someone else may be voted to take their place at the end of a normal term.

The question is: At anytime, can any member, move to remove an officer from their position, receive a second and majority vote, and the officer then be removed?

[Chris Harrison]

Thank you very much. That has solved a great problem for me. I have one more question if you don't mind.

Our existing by-laws do not specify a means for removing an officer from office other than during regular elections when someone else may be voted to take their place at the end of a normal term.

The question is: At anytime, can any member, move to remove an officer from their position, receive a second and majority vote, and the officer then be removed?

The answer depends on how the bylaws define the officer's term of office. If it is worded one way the election can be rescinded and if the wording is a different way the only way to remove the officer is to have a full trial described on RONR pp. 629-642. See RONR p. 642 line 29 through p. 643 for discussion on the wording.

[ggarland]

Our by-laws do not define a specified term for this particular office. It is an elected position that normally doesn't change unless the officer resigns.

[ggarland]

I think I should explain that the officer referred to has committed no offense, and is not in anyway in a position to be disciplined. It is strictly a political move, by members who did not like the way the vote went in the last election, and wishes to remove the officer. There is no one "waiting in the wings" to fill the position.

[Chris Harrison]

Our by-laws do not define a specified term for this particular office. It is an elected position that normally doesn't change unless the officer resigns.

So you are saying that there is never an election for this office unless a vacancy needs to be filled because the officer resigned?

[Chris Harrison]

I think I should explain that the officer referred to has committed no offense, and is not in anyway in a position to be disciplined. It is strictly a political move, by members who did not like the way the vote went in the last election, and wishes to remove the officer. There is no one "waiting in the wings" to fill the position.

You all could approach the officer and explain the situation and ask him to resign. He is free to decline in which case you would need to wait until the next election and elect someone else. It really isn't fair to the officer for you all to remove him from office because you all have buyer's remorse.

[ggarland]

So you are saying that there is never an election for this office unless a vacancy needs to be filled because the officer resigned?

Yes. That is correct. In the history, there have been three times that I know of that the officer was asked to voluntarily resign. At one point in history many years ago, this position was elected annually, but that was changed about 20 or 25 years ago so that the position is only filled when it becomes open due to voluntary resignation.

This change was not done by way of a change to the by-laws, but as a general vote. The by-laws do not reference this position in particular at all.

[Chris Harrison]

Yes. That is correct. In the history, there have been three times that I know of that the officer was asked to voluntarily resign. At one point in history many years ago, this position was elected annually, but that was changed about 20 or 25 years ago so that the position is only filled when it becomes open due to voluntary resignation.

This change was not done by way of a change to the by-laws, but as a general vote. The by-laws do not reference this position in particular at all.

Well, if the bylaws don't provide for the position at all I think the adopted motion naming this person to the position could be Rescinded (RONR pp. 293-299) but I am not 100% sure there wouldn't be some parliamentary issue with doing so so say tuned for other opinions.

[Josh Martin]

I think I should explain that the officer referred to has committed no offense, and is not in anyway in a position to be disciplined. It is strictly a political move, by members who did not like the way the vote went in the last election, and wishes to remove the officer. There is no one "waiting in the wings" to fill the position.

Well, if the bylaws don't provide for the position at all I think the adopted motion naming this person to the position could be Rescinded (RONR pp. 293-299) but I am not 100% sure there wouldn't be some parliamentary issue with doing so so say tuned for other opinions.

I agree completely. If the Bylaws do not provide for the position, the position is not truly an officer position, per Principle of Interpretation #4. Therefore, the prohibition against rescinding an election to office does not apply. The motion to elect the individual may be rescinded the same as any other motion. Alternately, the assembly could rescind the motion creating the position to do away with it altogether. In either case, the usual voting requirements for the motion to rescind would apply - a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice. Whether it is ethical for the assembly to do so for strictly political reasons is not a parliamentary issue. I expect it will be an interesting debate.

[Gary c Tesser]

A few quick thoughts on this thread.

1. Just by coincidence of first names, I'm uncomfortable addressing someone as "Brother Gary." I feel awkward and somewhat rude using quotation marks, and I hope this Original Poster is not offended.

2. Is it the current, 10th edition, of RONR that "Brother Gary" bought? (Let's hope so....) Now I'm going to guess that by "the charts on page 6," he's referring to the "Tinted" pages (actually tinted yellowish, in the 7th and 9th editions I have here), with the edges tinted grey in the 10th. But all I see that's pertinent around there is Motion 16, "amend bylaws ...," but that's on Tinted p. 10 - 11 (the amendable-or-not column is way over there on p. 11). So: "Brother Gary", is that what you're looking at? If not, what, on p. 6? (And which p. 6? Eleventh Edition, you got some 'splainin' to do!)

3. This might be a fruitless kettle of worms, but: Brother Gary, what old version of Robert's Rules said that proposed bylaw amendments cannot be changed, and how exactly did it say that?

4. I've been advised it's a bad idea to disagree with some of the other posters, so I do not, when I know what's good for me. Unlike now: I am appalled at the procedure proposed in Brother Gary's post of "Yesterday [that's what it says -- I suspect it means Saturday, August 14], 2:36 PM" -- with the assembly apparently having had no opportunity to hear what the proposed changes actually are. It is possible that it is obvious to everybody except bobble-headed me that clearly, the proposed bylaw amendments had been distributed beforehand; and everybody has studied them to their heart's content; and that everybody knew it was their right to hear them read again here, and that nobody felt it necessary. But if the assembly were being asked to buy a pig in a poke, then this chairman needs a few minutes of intimate congress with a parliamentary crocodile before proceeding.

5. As to Brother Gary's question (still "Yesterday's" post at 2:36 PM) about Member 3's motion: unless I have overlooked it, Brother Gary has not posted here (thankfully!) the procedure detailed in his bylaws for amending them. Above all, that procedure must be followed. If it requires deferring the vote to the next meeting, then hands down, you must; if it does not, then Brother Gary, whyever might you have to?

6. ("Brother Gary," "Yesterday," 2:50 PM): Obviously none of us minds one more question. I have enjoyed Brother Gary's questions over the past few days, and found the resulting give-and-take stimulating. If I had to mind something, it might be that he NOT ask more questions. But I do think that this question of removing an officer would have been better off as a new discussion thread. This one was so admirably focussed. Alas.

[ggarland]

Gary C. Tesser,

I appreciate your candor. I will try and be as systematic in my replies as possible.

"1. Just by coincidence of first names, I'm uncomfortable addressing someone as "Brother Gary." I feel awkward and somewhat rude using quotation marks, and I hope this Original Poster is not offended."

I am sorry that calling me "Brother Gary" is uncomfortable to you. However, that is what a lot of people call me, so that is what I used as my name. I am kind of like the old saying, "call me anything you want .... just call me".

"2. Is it the current, 10th edition, of RONR that "Brother Gary" bought? (Let's hope so....) Now I'm going to guess that by "the charts on page 6," he's referring to the "Tinted" pages (actually tinted yellowish, in the 7th and 9th editions I have here), with the edges tinted grey in the 10th. But all I see that's pertinent around there is Motion 16, "amend bylaws ...," but that's on Tinted p. 10 - 11 (the amendable-or-not column is way over there on p. 11). So: "Brother Gary", is that what you're looking at? If not, what, on p. 6? (And which p. 6? Eleventh Edition, you got some 'splainin' to do!)"

It is in fact the 10th addition. When speaking of the charts, I was referring to the pages near the back that have the gray edge to them. On page six of the tinted pages, amendment 6 says "Adopt revised bylaws or constitution". In either amendment 6 or 16, each column has exactly the same answers.

"3. This might be a fruitless kettle of worms, but: Brother Gary, what old version of Robert's Rules said that proposed bylaw amendments cannot be changed, and how exactly did it say that?"

Please don't hang me up by the toes and beat me with a dead fish, but the other version of Robert's Rules that I have is a tired old dog-eared copy apparently printed in 1986. The title on the cover says, "Robert's Rules of Order - The standard guide to parliamentary procedure. Now fully illustrated for quick, clear reference." "Illustrated by Will Eisner" It has some very good artwork of various business meeting scenes.

"4. I've been advised it's a bad idea to disagree with some of the other posters, so I do not, when I know what's good for me. Unlike now: I am appalled at the procedure proposed in Brother Gary's post of "Yesterday [that's what it says -- I suspect it means Saturday, August 14], 2:36 PM" -- with the assembly apparently having had no opportunity to hear what the proposed changes actually are. It is possible that it is obvious to everybody except bobble-headed me that clearly, the proposed bylaw amendments had been distributed beforehand; and everybody has studied them to their heart's content; and that everybody knew it was their right to hear them read again here, and that nobody felt it necessary. But if the assembly were being asked to buy a pig in a poke, then this chairman needs a few minutes of intimate congress with a parliamentary crocodile before proceeding."

Just to clarify - the proposed changes were read and then presented in writing in the July business meeting. They were then typed by the secretary, presented to the change committee for approval, and then made available to the membership. They were placed in the newsletter that came out two weeks after the business meeting, as well as left on the information table for anyone to pick up. the membership will have had one full month from the time they were presented to study and complain to their hearts content before a vote will be taken on them.

"5. As to Brother Gary's question (still "Yesterday's" post at 2:36 PM) about Member 3's motion: unless I have overlooked it, Brother Gary has not posted here (thankfully!) the procedure detailed in his bylaws for amending them. Above all, that procedure must be followed. If it requires deferring the vote to the next meeting, then hands down, you must; if it does not, then Brother Gary, whyever might you have to?"

To my shame I suppose that I didn't explain this very well. The by-laws do not mention the changing of the by-laws, thus the need to change the by-laws. So, there is no procedure detailed for amending them. The only thing the by-laws say is that all deliberations shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order.

"6. ("Brother Gary," "Yesterday," 2:50 PM): Obviously none of us minds one more question. I have enjoyed Brother Gary's questions over the past few days, and found the resulting give-and-take stimulating. If I had to mind something, it might be that he NOT ask more questions. But I do think that this question of removing an officer would have been better off as a new discussion thread. This one was so admirably focussed. Alas."

I am glad to have been a small part of your "stimulation". (That really sounded kinky didn't it?) Anyway, I agree that it would have been better to have the new discussion as a new thread. However, while I had someone on the line in the current thread, I didn't want to take a chance of them getting away. Thus the reason for placing it all in one thread. I will try and do better next time.

[Trina]

....

Anyway, I agree that it would have been better to have the new discussion as a new thread. However, while I had someone on the line in the current thread, I didn't want to take a chance of them getting away. Thus the reason for placing it all in one thread. I will try and do better next time.

Don't worry too much about keeping someone 'on the line' -- an unanswered question around here gets about as much peace and quiet as a pork chop in a tank of piranhas .

Seriously, a lot of questions get an initial bite, in the form of the first posted response, in under ten minutes. Of course there are 'slow' times, when you might have to wait a whole hour or two...

In response to your comment that your bylaws do not contain a procedure for amending the bylaws, take a look at p. 562 ll. 13-18 in your newly acquired copy of RONR (if you have not already done so) -- that gives the default bylaws amendment procedure under Robert's Rules. Note that submitting the proposed amendment at the previous meeting is NOT a necessary part of the default procedure, although it may be the custom in your organization. Written notice is also acceptable, or the bylaws can even be amended (without notice) by the vote of a majority of the entire membership.