Changes to Constitution

[Guest Pat Driscoll]

In posting the agenda for an upcoming Fall Meeting, I listed the proposed changes to the Constitution in the agenda under New Business eg: Motion to amend By Law II, point 2, Membership.

Is this adequate or do I also have to post at the same time a detailed explanation of the change eg: Motion to amend By Law II, point 2, Membership--a person has to be of a certain age to be eligible to participate. Not sure if both are needed to be posted.

Thank you.

[jstackpo]

What is necessary depends on what your bylaw require;

What is adequate is more of a political question - explanations of "why" probably can't hurt.

[Lowell]

When an amendment is proposed in the meeting agenda, would it then require a motion, second, and approval to even merit discussion at the meeting? Our Constitution provides that any member can introduce an amendment at any regular meeting for discussion only with a vote to be taken at the next meeting. Does our Constitution procedure seem appropriate? If not, nobody will ever be able to introduce (on his own) an amendment without lining up all the proper people to get it on the agenda.

[Tim Wynn]

Lowell,

Like many organizations, your concept of this "agenda" is causing problems. Most organizations don't need an agenda and are better off without one. If an organization wants to use an agenda, it's not official until adopted at the meeting. No one person controls the agenda, and no motion has to be on an agenda in order to be moved in a meeting.

Bylaw amendments commonly require notice, this is something different than being placed on an agenda. If your bylaws require notice, you'll have to conform to the details of that rule. When notice of a bylaw amendment is given, the amendment is taken up under Unfinished Business and General Orders.

[Guest Pat Driscoll]

Lowell,

Like many organizations, your concept of this "agenda" is causing problems. Most organizations don't need an agenda and are better off without one. If an organization wants to use an agenda, it's not official until adopted at the meeting. No one person controls the agenda, and no motion has to be on an agenda in order to be moved in a meeting.

Bylaw amendments commonly require notice, this is something different than being placed on an agenda. If your bylaws require notice, you'll have to conform to the details of that rule. When notice of a bylaw amendment is given, the amendment is taken up under Unfinished Business and General Orders.

Thank you, Tim. I appreciate your answer.

[hmtcastle]

Thank you, Tim. I appreciate your answer.

One can only hope Lowell does too.

[Tim Wynn]

One can only hope Lowell does too.

[Rob Elsman]

In posting the agenda for an upcoming Fall Meeting, I listed the proposed changes to the Constitution in the agenda under New Business eg: Motion to amend By Law II, point 2, Membership.

Is this adequate or do I also have to post at the same time a detailed explanation of the change eg: Motion to amend By Law II, point 2, Membership--a person has to be of a certain age to be eligible to participate. Not sure if both are needed to be posted.

Thank you.

"Posting" is not substantively equivalent to "mailed" in RONR (10th ed.), p. 5, l. 3, which applies to those societies that have an accurate roll of the members. Thus, in these societies, a motion to amend the bylaws, that has only been "posted", is out of order on account that previous notice of the motion has not been validly given.

[Rob Elsman]

"Posting" is not substantively equivalent to "mailed" in RONR (10th ed.), p. 5, l. 3, which applies to those societies that have an accurate roll of the members. Thus, in these societies, a motion to amend the bylaws, that has only been "posted", is out of order on account that previous notice of the motion has not been validly given.

Well, my response obviously assumes that previous notice of the amendment is required.

[Lowell]

Thank you for your responses. I had the honor of having Mr. Mountcastle provide valuable assistance early last year on my subject relating to suspending rules on provisions in our bylaws. Regarding the above (#4) to me from Tim, I should have not used the word "agenda". I should have said above (#3): "The Constitution of our organization (for at least 40 years) provides in essence that any individual member (or appointed constitution review committee, for example) can introduce an amendment to the constitution or bylaws at any regular meeting for discussion only with a vote to be taken a subsequent meeting, at which time the proposed changes will be formally introduced by the form of a motion, second, and subsequent vote by the members." This week, for the first time, a member challenged our written document by stating that RROO requires a motion with a second to introduce, even for general discussion, any proposed change which will simply be discussed, although known not to be called for a vote. It has been our opinion that what is written in our constitution is valid on how we conduct business; anything not specifically stated in the document would fall under RROO where our bylaws state: All questions of parliamentary procedure not covered by this Constitution and Bylaws shall be governed by the latest edition of RROO. Do you agree that it is proper to continue to implement our provisions(outlined above) to bring forth a proposed bylaw change as spelled out in our present constitution without requiring a motion to introduce it for discussion only? I am sorry if this ended up so wordy! Thank you.

[Gary c Tesser]

[snip]

Lowell, a couple of points.

1. I don't understand your anticipated difficulty about lining up people, regarding an agenda (on the thread's Post #3 -- wow, I have never seen anyone specify the Post Numbers before! Nice!). ... Or, hmm, maybe Tim Wynn has answered you. Would be unsurprising. Tim figuring out what's opaque to me. Ho hum.

2. The rules in your constitution and bylaws ALWAYS supersede the rules given in Robert's Rules. ALWAYS. "Do you agree that it is proper to continue to implement our provisions(outlined above) to bring forth a proposed bylaw change as spelled out in our present constitution ...?" Yes, of course. ALWAYS.

-- 2 (a). But we commentators (like me) or pundits (like Mr Mt) here on the world's premier parliamentary website forum can't validly interpret any ambiguities that are in your bylaws. We haven't read them in their entirety, which would need to be done, at a minimum. Your organization itself must interpret its bylaws, because you all are really the only valid authority on what they mean.

--- 2 (. So anything that your gadfly member says that suggests that you have to follow what Robert's Rules says, when your bylaws or constitution say something different, is plain wrong. Period. Always.

(-- 2 ©. Okay, here's some persnickety fussbudget, maybe almost lawyerese, gibberish, that might be exceptions. If your bylaws somehow idiotically say that in some instances, what Robert's Rules says will trump what your bylaws say, then you have conflicting bylaws, and you have to, um, maybe flip a coin. RONR, p. 570 - 573, will advise you on the coin flip. Also, if, say, there is a Government Statute that says that your bylaws yield to Robert's Rules in any conflict between them, then probably you go with the Statute and RONR, and ignore your bylaws. You know what? I just plain give up on understanding your silly planet here, I'm fed up, and I'm maybe getting the first ticket home. Except you got writers like Foulkes and Wynn and Mt and Trina here, so maybe okay, Ill stick around)

-- 2 (d). But your member raises an idly interesting, if probably pointless, question. How does the proposed bylaw amendment get brought up at the earlier meeting -- the one just for discussion only -- if not by a motion? (Remember that a motion is, by definition, a proposal that your group does something. In this case, make some change to your bylaws.) I'll bet that you have had, for your 40 years, some procedure, probably relaxed, that serves you well. If so, I advise you to keep it. -- That procedure is probably, in fact, actually an informal way of doing what Robert's Rules prescribes. As Mr Mt often says, Robert's Rules pretty much codifies what we all should have learned in the kindergarten sandbox.

-- 2 (e). But if, somehow, your gadfly member, who says that at the first meeting you need a formal motion, seconded and maybe saluted by the sergeant-at-arms, is right -- in the context of how your organization works -- and dealing with proposed bylaws amendments is a mess, then -- well -- you'll need to fix it. In which case, the best way might just be by making a proposal by making a motion. By definition.

[Lowell]

Gary - I like your writing style ! I recognize that you and others are not official interpreters of RROO, and I don't expect that; just a little assurance on the basics of how the game is played. The difficulty with "lining up people" (as you state) is that while some members may talk alot outside of a meeting, when it is time to "put up" and say something at the meeting, they just won't and as such can undermine the person who created a proposal!! For now, I would say: 'nuf said on this topic. Thanks much.

Lowell

[Tim Wynn]

Gary - I like your writing style !

More fuel on the inferno.