Guest Ann Posted September 10, 2010 at 01:20 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 at 01:20 PM The church I attend has been working on updating and making changes to the by-laws. We were all told that we were meeting to vote on the by-laws as a whole, when getting to the meeting some one said that Robert's Rules of Order state that you have to go section by section and can not vote on them as a whole. Is this true? Do you have to go section by section or can you vote on them as a whole document? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted September 10, 2010 at 01:36 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 at 01:36 PM Do you have to go section by section or can you vote on them as a whole document?Either approach is acceptable.And the next time "someone says" that Robert's Rules says anything (especially if it sounds fishy), ask them to show you where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted September 10, 2010 at 01:59 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 at 01:59 PM The church I attend has been working on updating and making changes to the by-laws. We were all told that we were meeting to vote on the by-laws as a whole, when getting to the meeting some one said that Robert's Rules of Order state that you have to go section by section and can not vote on them as a whole. Is this true? Do you have to go section by section or can you vote on them as a whole document?No one has the right to impose that restriction on the members from the outset (at least not according to RONR). It's a common misconception that someone can impose an up-or-down vote on the membership, just by saying that no amendments will be allowed, or that no discussion will take place. When preparing a complicated motion (or a potentially complex set of bylaws amendments) it's tempting to demand a vote on the whole thing as it stands, without allowing the 'messiness' of membership involvement. However, just because it's tempting, doesn't mean it can actually be done that way.The assembly may choose to go ahead and vote on the whole thing at once.However, the assembly has the right to consider (and amend) all the proposed changes individually. So, no, you don't have to go section by section, but the assembly does have the basic right to do so.If individual amendments to the bylaws are being proposed, any further amendment of those proposals must stay within the scope of the notice that was provided to the members ahead of time.If a revision of the bylaws is being proposed (replacement of existing bylaws with entirely new bylaws), there is no scope of notice restriction, but every part of the proposed revision is still subject to further amendment by the assembly, prior to taking a final vote on the whole (possibly amended) revision. See RONR pp. 266-270 for a description of consideration by paragraph or seriatim (which is how a revision is normally processed by the assembly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 10, 2010 at 02:11 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 at 02:11 PM No one has the right to impose that restriction on the members from the outset (at least not according to RONR). It's a common misconception that someone can impose an up-or-down vote on the membership, just by saying that no amendments will be allowed, or that no discussion will take place. When preparing a complicated motion (or a potentially complex set of bylaws amendments) it's tempting to demand a vote on the whole thing as it stands, without allowing the 'messiness' of membership involvement. However, just because it's tempting, doesn't mean it can actually be done that way.The assembly may choose to go ahead and vote on the whole thing at once.However, the assembly has the right to consider (and amend) all the proposed changes individually. So, no, you don't have to go section by section, but the assembly does have the basic right to do so.If individual amendments to the bylaws are being proposed, any further amendment of those proposals must stay within the scope of the notice that was provided to the members ahead of time.If a revision of the bylaws is being proposed (replacement of existing bylaws with entirely new bylaws), there is no scope of notice restriction, but every part of the proposed revision is still subject to further amendment by the assembly, prior to taking a final vote on the whole (possibly amended) revision. See RONR pp. 266-270 for a description of consideration by paragraph or seriatim (which is how a revision is normally processed by the assembly).I get the impression that someone was insisting that the sections are to be voted on individually, and if a general revision is being proposed, this would not be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ann Posted September 10, 2010 at 02:16 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 at 02:16 PM Thanks so much for your guidance. I am new to Roberts rules and plan on purchasing a copy so I can better understand...right now everyone goes by what one person says and this can cause confusion. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted September 10, 2010 at 02:16 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 at 02:16 PM See RONR pp. 266-270 for a description of consideration by paragraph or seriatim.And note that, in this case, the word "or" does not indicate a choice between "by paragraph" and "seriatim", but that "seriatim" is another way of saying "by paragraph".So one might say, "See RONR pp. 266-270 for a description of consideration by paragraph (or seriatim)". Or just avoid the Latin altogether. Sine die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted September 10, 2010 at 02:26 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 at 02:26 PM I get the impression that someone was insisting that the sections are to be voted on individually, and if a general revision is being proposed, this would not be the case.To be clear, my understanding is when a revision of the bylaws is up for adoption, each section is open for amendment (seriatim), each amendment being voted upon, and when all sections/amendments have been addressed, the "newly revised" revision as a whole is once again up for the "final vote" by the membership. Correct? Close? Out on that limb?Also, during this process (revision of the whole as opposed to just a singular amendment) the scope is now "wide open." For example, if the old bylaw on member dues stated $25 annually, and the revision stated $50 annually, there was no restriction to a motion to amend that particular section to $75. Correct? Close? Bird's eye view of the neighborhood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 10, 2010 at 02:36 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 at 02:36 PM To be clear, my understanding is when a revision of the bylaws is up for adoption, each section is open for amendment (seriatim), each amendment being voted upon, and when all sections/amendments have been addressed, the "newly revised" revision as a whole is once again up for the "final vote" by the membership. Correct? Close? Out on that limb?Also, during this process (revision of the whole as opposed to just a singular amendment) the scope is now "wide open." For example, if the old bylaw on member dues stated $25 annually, and the revision stated $50 annually, there was no restriction to a motion to amend that particular section to $75. Correct? Close? Bird's eye view of the neighborhood?This looks about right, except that I think it would be clearer if the words "once again" were struck out of the first sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted September 10, 2010 at 02:37 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2010 at 02:37 PM This looks about right, except that I think it would be clearer if the words "once again" were struck out of the first sentence.Consider it done. And thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.