30 day mail req to change a by-law

[Guest maguyver]

Our By-laws require that before a by-law can be changed that there be a notice mailed to all eligble voters prior to voting on the proposed change.

If 100% of the eligible voters are present can a motion be made to suspend this requirement if there is 100% agreement on the proposed suspension?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thank You

[George Mervosh]

In my view, yes, since a rule protecting absentees only has teeth when there are absentees to protect, though you won't find a specific citation in RONR (at least in the 10th edition ).

[hmtcastle]

In my view, yes, since a rule protecting absentees only has teeth when there are absentees to protect, though you won't find a specific citation in RONR (at least in the 10th edition).

And as long as everyone is present and the bylaws are being amended, why not add a clause that explicitly permits amendment if 100% of the membership is present and no member objects.

[Robert B Fish]

And as long as everyone is present and the bylaws are being amended, why not add a clause that explicitly permits amendment if 100% of the membership is present and no member objects.

On the other hand, why add such a rule since it's agreed that it's not needed to accomplish 'waiver of notice' if there are no absentees?

-Bob

[David A Foulkes]

100% attendance AND 100% agreement?!?!?!?!? How do I become a member?

Is this really one of those rules of order that is suspendable? I have been under the impression that only (or primarily, or mostly) those sorts of rules apply in the context of a meeting as parliamentary procedure. This does not necessarily seem to be that type. And as RONR strongly suggests, and Mr. Mountcastle often refers to, (putting into my own words) play it safe and assume your bylaws aren't suspendable.

[hmtcastle]

On the other hand, why add such a rule since it's agreed that it's not needed to accomplish 'waiver of notice' if there are no absentees?

The fact is that the question was asked and, per Mr. Mervosh, there is no specific citation in RONR to support the answer given.

Putting it in the bylaws will obviate the need for another trip to this forum when the original poster is no longer a member. Or if a new set of forum "regulars" find themselves in disagreement.

[George Mervosh]

The fact is that the question was asked and, per Mr. Mervosh, there is no specific citation in RONR to support the answer given.

Putting it in the bylaws will obviate the need for another trip to this forum when the original poster is no longer a member. Or if a new set of forum "regulars" find themselves in disagreement.

I agree with Mr. Mt. because someday, some member is going to challenge this in a venue outside of this forum.

[Rob Elsman]

Our By-laws require that before a by-law can be changed that there be a notice mailed to all eligble voters prior to voting on the proposed change.

If 100% of the eligible voters are present can a motion be made to suspend this requirement if there is 100% agreement on the proposed suspension?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thank You

Recognizing that I am an outlier on this issue, a unanimous consent request to Suspend the Rules that interfere with the consideration of a motion requiring a certain number of days' mailed previous notice is out of order. The exact text of the applicable rule is (sorry, copyright holders, but this can't be discussed, otherwise): "Rules protecting absentees or a basic right of an individual member cannot be suspended, even by unanimous consent or an actual unanimous vote." RONR (10th ed.), p. 255, ll. 13-15. The rule is not qualified to apply only when a member is absent; therefore, it applies even when all the members are present, even if none of them object. If the authors intend the rule to only apply when members are absent, they will say so; until then, the language of the rule as it is actually written should be enforced, regardless how inconvenient it is.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Our By-laws require that before a by-law can be changed that there be a notice mailed to all eligble voters prior to voting on the proposed change.

"Mailed"?

Usually, whenever a rule requires a mailing, that rule will include a TIME ELEMENT, for example, 2 days; 2 weeks, 2 months.

Q. Doesn't your rule include a deadline, or a minimum?

[Dan Honemann]

No rule protects absentees if there are no absentees to protect.

[Rob Elsman]

No rule protects absentees if there are no absentees to protect.

That's not so. A rule is in the nature of a rule that protects absentees if it falls into the class of rules that protect absentees, whether or not there are absentees to protect in a particular instance--just as rules in the bylaws that are not in the nature of rules of order and do not provide for their own suspension are unsuspendable, even when all the members are present and want to suspend them on account of their present inconvenience. Your position is relativistic, and I cannot agree with it.

[hmtcastle]

Recognizing that I am an outlier on this issue . . .

I tend to be an 'outlier' on this question too, though I'll agree that with no members absent, there are no absentees to protect. My objection goes more to the requirement for advance notice with the idea that, not only does if give members enough time to arrange to attend (perhaps a moot point if everyone shows up), it gives members time to consider what's being proposed. But this has come up here before and I guess that "giving members time" is not a fundamental right.

In any case, the fact that this disagreement exists on such a high parliamentary plane as this forum, is all the more reason to put such an exemption in the bylaws.

[Gary Novosielski]

Recognizing that I am an outlier on this issue, a unanimous consent request to Suspend the Rules that interfere with the consideration of a motion requiring a certain number of days' mailed previous notice is out of order. The exact text of the applicable rule is (sorry, copyright holders, but this can't be discussed, otherwise): "Rules protecting absentees or a basic right of an individual member cannot be suspended, even by unanimous consent or an actual unanimous vote." RONR (10th ed.), p. 255, ll. 13-15. The rule is not qualified to apply only when a member is absent; therefore, it applies even when all the members are present, even if none of them object. If the authors intend the rule to only apply when members are absent, they will say so; until then, the language of the rule as it is actually written should be enforced, regardless how inconvenient it is.

I would point out that neither unanimous consent nor an actual unanimous vote imply that all members are present, since both require merely 100% of those present and voting. It is correct that neither would protect the rights of absent members. (I think we can agree that basic rights of individual members are not imperiled here.)

But, with the understanding that the basic purpose of previous notice is is to protect absentees, when there are no absentees, who is being protected, and from whom?

[Rob Elsman]

I would point out that neither unanimous consent nor an actual unanimous vote imply that all members are present, since both require merely 100% of those present and voting. It is correct that neither would protect the rights of absent members. (I think we can agree that basic rights of individual members are not imperiled here.)

But, with the understanding that the basic purpose of previous notice is is to protect absentees, when there are no absentees, who is being protected, and from whom?

That is all well and good, but it is not what the book actually says. Page 255, ll. 15-18, classifies by example that a rule requiring previous notice of a proposed amendment to the bylaws is in the nature of a rule that protects absentees; hence, under the rule of ll. 13-15, the rule is unsuspendable. The reasoning is simple. If X is an element of the set Y, and elements of the set Y are unsuspendable, then X is unsuspendable. That is what the plain language of the paragraph actually says.

[Dan Honemann]

Yes, rules requiring previous notice of motions protect absentees, but they do so only if there are absentees.

[David A Foulkes]

"Mailed"?

Usually, whenever a rule requires a mailing, that rule will include a TIME ELEMENT, for example, 2 days; 2 weeks, 2 months.

Q. Doesn't your rule include a deadline, or a minimum?

You did read the subject line, yes?

Yes, rules requiring previous notice of motions protect absentees, but they do so only if there are absentees.

But this seems to be a sort of retroactive suspension. Does the fact that 100% of members are in attendance at a meeting allow the assembly to suspend a rule that should have been enforced (and in fact was in force) 30 days previously?

[Gary Novosielski]

That is all well and good, but it is not what the book actually says. Page 255, ll. 15-18, classifies by example that a rule requiring previous notice of a proposed amendment to the bylaws is in the nature of a rule that protects absentees; hence, under the rule of ll. 13-15, the rule is unsuspendable. The reasoning is simple. If X is an element of the set Y, and elements of the set Y are unsuspendable, then X is unsuspendable. That is what the plain language of the paragraph actually says.

I don't doubt that the rule is unsuspendable, but by having all members present, the rule is left protecting the null set, rendering it moot.

By having 100% attendance, the assembly did not need to suspend the rule, because while it arguably remained a member of set Y, it was no longer applicable to the situation.

I would go a step further and say that no motion to suspend was necessary (and may not have been in order) as long as it was noted that there were no absentees.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

No rule protects absentees if there are no absentees to protect.

I don't remember if there was a thread on this, or whether "Parliamentary Law" has covered this; but I remember somewhere, sometime, a question popped up:

Q. If 100% of the membership is present at a special meeting (properly called), can business other than the pre-announced business be transacted?

If the rule regarding previous notice protects absentees, and if there are no absentees, then, in theory, a special meeting with 100% attendance has the opportunity to transact other non-pre-announced business.

[Dan Honemann]

Q. If 100% of the membership is present at a special meeting (properly called), can business other than the pre-announced business be transacted?

Yes.