Another By Law Question

[Lori Lukinuk]

Our by-law states: "This By-law may be amended by a 3/4 vote of the Trustees of the Board at any Regular meeting of the Board, provided that notice of intention to introduce any such amendment, and the specific amendment to be introduced have been given in writing at the previous Regular meeting of the Board, and are referred to in the agenda."

I know, I know, I know....the board is responsible to interpret their own by-laws.

Situation:

By-law with Appendix A brought forward to a standing committee meeting...no discussion allowed by chair to the by-laws.

Two weeks later By-law brought forward to the Regular Board meeting with a motions stating..."It is recommended that XXX board revise the 2006 Procedural By-Law with the changes described in Appendix A of Report No. 129-10, Revisions to the 2006 Procedural By-Law and Notice to Enact, and that the resulting document be known as the 2010 Procedural By-Law."

Objection was raised that we had not received the specific amendments to be introduced in writing at the previous Regular meeting of the Board so we should not be voting for the revision that evening.

Chair stated, they didn't need to be provided at a previous Regular Board meeting and that a majority vote was all that was required this evening and the actual enactment required the 3/4 vote...not the amendments occurring this evening.

Objector received no support from others. Motion was passed by a majority vote after an amendment to add the date for the enactment.

Again, as is stated on this site often, I know we all interpret our own by-laws. But what do others think our actual by-law means? Were we supposed to have a majority vote to revise these by-laws without previously having the revisions at the Previous Regular meeting of the Board.

Lori

[hmtcastle]

I know, I know, I know....the board is responsible to interpret their own by-laws.

Again, as is stated on this site often, I know we all interpret our own by-laws. But what do others think our actual by-law means?

Firstly, the board doesn't have its own bylaws and is not authorized to interpret the bylaws of the association (even if, unfortunately, the board is authorized to amend them).

Secondly, as you acknowledge, it doesn't matter what "others think" about your bylaws. Especially since no one here has read them.

[Lori Lukinuk]

Firstly, the board doesn't have its own bylaws and is not authorized to interpret the bylaws of the association (even if, unfortunately, the board is authorized to amend them).

Secondly, as you acknowledge, it doesn't matter what "others think" about your bylaws. Especially since no one here has read them.

I was waiting for that very response. We are a Board of Trustees and we do have our own bylaws that we must follow. We don't have an association. We are elected by the Public every four years to make up the Board. We have the authority to amend our bylaws and there are provisions in the by-laws to do just that.

The question really is should we be voting to revise our bylaws by majority vote without previously having them provided at the previous Regular meeting of the board. Furthermore does the by-law as written and quoted in the previous post indicate to anyone that only the enactment requires a 3/4 vote?

[Tim Wynn]

"It is recommended that XXX board revise the 2006 Procedural By-Law with the changes described in Appendix A of Report No. 129-10, Revisions to the 2006 Procedural By-Law and Notice to Enact, and that the resulting document be known as the 2010 Procedural By-Law."

I'm not sure what the intention is, when creating a "document to be known as the 2010 Procedural By-law." If the intent is to create a document, it would require a majority vote. If this document is to contain special rules of order, it would require notice and a two-thirds vote. If this document will amend the bylaws, it requires following the procedure for amendment contained in the bylaws.

Objection was raised that we had not received the specific amendments to be introduced in writing at the previous Regular meeting of the Board so we should not be voting for the revision that evening.

This was a point of order (apparently).

Chair stated, they didn't need to be provided at a previous Regular Board meeting and that a majority vote was all that was required this evening and the actual enactment required the 3/4 vote...not the amendments occurring this evening.

This was the chair's ruling, which could have been appealed.

Objector received no support from others. Motion was passed by a majority vote after an amendment to add the date for the enactment.

The best support would have been an appeal, or a second to an appeal from the objector.

Again, as is stated on this site often, I know we all interpret our own by-laws. But what do others think our actual by-law means? Were we supposed to have a majority vote to revise these by-laws without previously having the revisions at the Previous Regular meeting of the Board.

The bylaw excerpt you posted calls for notice to amend. Without notice, such amendment would not be possible. If the bylaws were amended without necessary notice, a point of order can be raised at anytime.

[Tim Wynn]

I was waiting for that very response.

Sounds like an ambush.

[hmtcastle]

I was waiting for that very response.

In that case I suggest you wait a bit longer for some other responses.

Our Asian correspondent usually checks in in the middle of the night (although it's probably the middle of the day where he is). And I don't think we've heard from our correspondent in Ireland for awhile but his comments are also worth waiting for.

[Lori Lukinuk]

Sounds like an ambush.

No ambush intended...I just have been on this forum a few times and am often more confused afterwards. I've learned to expect certain types or tones to responses, although I have come to watch for the response of Mountcastle. Usually pretty clear.

[Lori Lukinuk]

I'm not sure what the intention is, when creating a "document to be known as the 2010 Procedural By-law." If the intent is to create a document, it would require a majority vote. If this document is to contain special rules of order, it would require notice and a two-thirds vote. If this document will amend the bylaws, it requires following the procedure for amendment contained in the bylaws.

This was a point of order (apparently).

This was the chair's ruling, which could have been appealed.

The best support would have been an appeal, or a second to an appeal from the objector.

The bylaw excerpt you posted calls for notice to amend. Without notice, such amendment would not be possible. If the bylaws were amended without necessary notice, a point of order can be raised at anytime.

This is how I interpret what should have happened. I also know that this particular Board follows its bylaws only when it is convenient to do so. I undertand why the objector did not appeal as he has done this before with no success and no seconder. After the meeting one other member stated to the objector that he was correct and 3/4 vote should have been required to amend the by-laws, but he didn't know about the previous notice part. Obviously this member had never read the by-laws in the first place and didn't really know what he was voting for.

[Tim Wynn]

No ambush intended...I just have been on this forum a few times and am often more confused afterwards. I've learned to expect certain types or tones to responses, although I have come to watch for the response of Mountcastle. Usually pretty clear.

In a good way, I hope.

(I remember you from some of your posts a few months ago. Congratulations on the RP.)

[hmtcastle]

I have come to watch for the response of Mountcastle. Usually pretty clear.

I'll accept that as a compliment, based in no small part on fond memories of time spent in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and the locks at Sault Ste. Marie. And an undying appreciation for the late, great Stan Rogers.

[Lori Lukinuk]

In a good way, I hope.

(I remember you from some of your posts a few months ago. Congratulations on the RP.)

Thank you...hope to work towards a CP from AIP and hopefully the PRP from NAP. Hard part is finding the time to get at it.

[Lori Lukinuk]

I'll accept that as a compliment, based in no small part on fond memories of time spent in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and the locks at Sault Ste. Marie. And an undying appreciation for the late, great Stan Rogers.

Intended as a compliment. If you ever get a chance to travel the Maritime Provinces....Ontario has some great sites,...but Cape Breton and the Cabot Trail and the whole of Nova Scotia experience can't be beat.