Motion - notice of scope?

[Guest ChrisAMorr]

An organizational name change has been approved by the Board and readied for full membership vote. In the "Notice of Vote", we have informed about the Board approved name change. There are members that would like to suggest an amendment to the name, or an alternate name all together. Because "all potential other names" does not clarify any "notice of scope", are we to proceed such that no amendments are allowed?

Of course, if any amendment is considered, all absentee ballots (as allowed by our bylaws) are null & void, as they have only voted on the original motion.

So the question remains - can we actually bring up a Board approved motion, and allow debate, but not take amendments from the floor, and still have a credible vote?

[Guest ChrisAMorr]

* "Scope of Notice" -- sorry!

[Kim Goldsworthy]

An organizational name change has been approved by the Board and readied for full membership vote.

In the "Notice of Vote", we have informed about the Board approved name change.

There are members that would like to suggest an amendment to the name, or an alternate name all together.

Because "all potential other names" does not clarify any "notice of scope", are we to proceed such that no amendments are allowed?

Of course, if any amendment is considered, all absentee ballots (as allowed by our bylaws) are null & void, as they have only voted on the original motion.

So the question remains - can we actually bring up a Board approved motion, and allow debate, but not take amendments from the floor, and still have a credible vote?

Just to mention the simple side of things first:

The easy "scope of notice" are those which involve NUMBERS.

Once a RANGE is established, then the parliamentary situation is clear.

But!

When the notice gives language, then it is harder to give a simple and accurate answer.

I think this will be "context sensitive."

What wording falls within scope for one person will look beyond scope to another person.

For a thing like a NAME CHANGE, I don't know how extensive the change is.

For example, for a sports mascot nickname, I would confident that any name (one word) would be within scope.

But for the full, formal name of the organization, I fear the proposed amendments might beyond what a "reasonable" person might judge to be within/beyond scope of notice.

***

"... absentee ballots ..."

Insert STOP sign here!

Since you have already CAST BALLOTS, then no amendments are allowed, because the rule is, once voting begins, no other motions are possible.

You must complete the balloting, without debate, without amendment.

You should have settled all the options ahead of time.

Now, you can only vote down the proposed name and propose a new name, if you think up a better name.

You cannot disenfranchise voters.

[Guest ChrisAMorr]

we have NOT cast ballots. we have not printed ballots, nor allowed absentee ballots YET.

Once that happens, ANY amendment negates the vote. That is understood.

Asking about ALL of this in the FUTURE.

Once the motion is made, because there is no "scope" that can limit language appropriately, can we just deny all proposed amendments and still call to vote? Obviously, if we entertain an amendment, all prior (absentee) votes are negated. But can we actually NOT accept any discussion/amendments from the floor? It is a 2/3 membership sinficant and likely contentious vote.

[hmtcastle]

Obviously, if we entertain an amendment, all prior (absentee) votes are negated.

I think what Mr. Goldsworthy is suggesting is that, if your rules do permit absentee votes, then you can't entertain any amendment since that would disenfranchise the absentee voters. I'm not as sure about that as he is, but it's certainly a plausible argument.

As for the scope of the notice. It's often in the eye of the beholder (as Mr. Goldworthy also notes). If, for example, the notice is to change the name of the American League to the National League, some might argue that you can't change the word "League" and can't have a name with more than two words. Some might even argue that your only option is "National" (or retaining the current name) since there's really no "scope" when it comes to those two words. But it will be the assembly that decides whether the scope-of-the-notice restriction has been violated.

On the other hand, if the desire is to open up the debate to any name change, I would think you might be able to give notice of a revision of the name of the organization. Notice of a revision of the bylaws removes any scope-of-notice restriction so, perhaps, that same principle can be applied to just one article of the bylaws. But I may be over-thinking this so stay tuned.

[Guest ChrisAMorr]

I understand that if ANY amendments are made, any prior (absentee) vote is invalid.

But can you actually have a yes/no vote, allowing discussion, but not allowing the membership to make any amendments? Isn't that part of due process? If membership controls the process, and 2/3 are required to pass, is their voice heard enough in the vote itself without opening up the floor to amendments?

[George Mervosh]

So the question remains - can we actually bring up a Board approved motion, and allow debate, but not take amendments from the floor, and still have a credible vote?

You might want to see if what is written on p. 258 fits your needs, although it would not allow for debate.

[Josh Martin]

But can you actually have a yes/no vote, allowing discussion, but not allowing the membership to make any amendments? Isn't that part of due process? If membership controls the process, and 2/3 are required to pass, is their voice heard enough in the vote itself without opening up the floor to amendments?

The chair can't just decide that there will be no amendments because he doesn't feel like handling Points of Order on scope of notice. You are absolutely correct that the ability to make amendments is part of the deliberative process, and it would be improper for the chair to declare that there will be no amendments. If a scope issue arises, he'll have to make a ruling at that time, and such a ruling is subject to appeal.

Now, if the general membership wants to remove any possibility of amendment, this could be accomplished by the motion to Suspend the Rules, which requires a 2/3 vote and is undebatable.