amending bylaws

[Guest gene]

we had a by law amendment amended during discussion of the original amendment. Specifically: the bylaw amendment eliminated 6 elective positions from the board of officers, reducing the amount to 9 from 15 elective positions.

previous notice of one month's notice is required for any changes to bylaws.

during the discussion a motion was made and passed, to change the number to 10 from 15, and create an additional officer position on the board that did not exist, for this 10th position.

is this proper in that no notice was given, and that is was a substantive change to the amendment on the table? also, this was an increase to the original proposal, and i believe requires previous notice to be given.

thank you for your assistance.

gene

[Larry Cisar]

we had a by law amendment amended during discussion of the original amendment. Specifically: the bylaw amendment eliminated 6 elective positions from the board of officers, reducing the amount to 9 from 15 elective positions.

previous notice of one month's notice is required for any changes to bylaws.

during the discussion a motion was made and passed, to change the number to 10 from 15, and create an additional officer position on the board that did not exist, for this 10th position.

is this proper in that no notice was given, and that is was a substantive change to the amendment on the table? also, this was an increase to the original proposal, and i believe requires previous notice to be given.

thank you for your assistance.

gene

Changing 9 to 10 is staying within the scope. As to what you call the position, your organization is going to have to rule on that.

[Tim Wynn]

we had a by law amendment amended during discussion of the original amendment. Specifically: the bylaw amendment eliminated 6 elective positions from the board of officers, reducing the amount to 9 from 15 elective positions.

previous notice of one month's notice is required for any changes to bylaws.

during the discussion a motion was made and passed, to change the number to 10 from 15, and create an additional officer position on the board that did not exist, for this 10th position.

is this proper in that no notice was given, and that is was a substantive change to the amendment on the table? also, this was an increase to the original proposal, and i believe requires previous notice to be given.

thank you for your assistance.

gene

I can't say if the motion stayed within the scope of the notice, because I don't know what the notice was nor what the motion was. However, in general, notice for eliminating positions is not the same as notice for creating a position. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 576-577.

[Guest gene]

Changing 9 to 10 is staying within the scope. As to what you call the position, your organization is going to have to rule on that.

i believe that it is not simply a matter of staying withing the 9 to 15 arguement, because the 6 positions that were eliminated all had the same classification, Rd.Captains.

in our Standing Rules we have the position of Sr.Rd.Captain, which is an appointive position, by the president, of one of the 6 captains, who are listed as elected officers in our bylaws.

the amendment made this position now an officer position, which did not exist before, and established no method for the selection of this position, other than being an elective position. to go from an appointive position to an elective one, is a gross change of the amendment, which should have been decided at a subsequent meeting.

i believe this is a gross deviation from the amendment on the table, and should have gone back to committee, at the least, and violated the 1 month notification rule we have in our bylaws.

in other words, this amendment should have been laid on the table at this meeting, to be voted on at our next meeting, as is required of all bylaw amendments.

gene

[hmtcastle]

i believe this is a gross deviation from the amendment on the table . . . in other words, this amendment should have been laid on the table at this meeting, to be voted on at our next meeting, as is required of all bylaw amendments.

Well, you were good up until you mentioned the table. Nothing is on the table and nothing is going on the table. The amendment, if improper, should be ruled out of order. If a member wants to give notice for the next meeting, he's free to do so.

[Gary c Tesser]

You can provide for appointive officers in your Standing Rules?

[Guest gene]

You can provide for appointive officers in your Standing Rules?

no. our standing rules only allow for the designation of one of the elected officials. appointment of elected officials occurs when there is a vacancy, then the president appoints with the majority approval of the board needed to approve of appointment.

what has occurred, in my opinion, is the merging of two separate and distinct items. wanting to reduce the number of board officers(elected), from 15 to 9, but, wanting to keep the sr.rd. captain as an officer. currently the sr.rd.capt. is an appointive position.

i believe that this amendment is totally illegal. it can be done legally, however, by giving the required notice(1 month), and being written as a new amendment, not as an amendment to the amendment.

gene

[Gary c Tesser]

no. our standing rules only allow for the designation of one of the elected officials. appointment of elected officials occurs when there is a vacancy, then the president appoints with the majority approval of the board needed to approve of appointment.

what has occurred, in my opinion, is the merging of two separate and distinct items. wanting to reduce the number of board officers(elected), from 15 to 9, but, wanting to keep the sr.rd. captain as an officer. currently the sr.rd.capt. is an appointive position.

i believe that this amendment is totally illegal. it can be done legally, however, by giving the required notice(1 month), and being written as a new amendment, not as an amendment to the amendment.

gene

I don't think we can hash out what goes on here on this forum. (e.g., what the heck does "designation" mean, as far as procedure is concerned?) Why not try the Foulkes bylaws forum for more hashing? I'm rather confident that the management here, on the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum, would not mind overmuch if the discussion concerning your own bylaws, and not pure RONR, continued elsewhere.

[Josh Martin]

i believe that it is not simply a matter of staying withing the 9 to 15 arguement, because the 6 positions that were eliminated all had the same classification, Rd.Captains.

in our Standing Rules we have the position of Sr.Rd.Captain, which is an appointive position, by the president, of one of the 6 captains, who are listed as elected officers in our bylaws.

the amendment made this position now an officer position, which did not exist before, and established no method for the selection of this position, other than being an elective position. to go from an appointive position to an elective one, is a gross change of the amendment, which should have been decided at a subsequent meeting

From the facts provided, it does seem that the amendment exceeded the scope of the notice and was therefore out of order. It would have to be introduced as a new amendment to the Bylaws, following the requirements for notice in the amendment process.

[Guest Richard]

I don't think we can hash out what goes on here on this forum. (e.g., what the heck does "designation" mean, as far as procedure is concerned?) Why not try the Foulkes bylaws forum for more hashing? I'm rather confident that the management here, on the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum, would not mind overmuch if the discussion concerning your own bylaws, and not pure RONR, continued elsewhere.

[Richardkay]

Where can I find the Foulkes bylaws forum ?

A meeting was called and only 65 hours notice was given instead of 72 as called for in the rules

I want to find out if it is OK for members to vote on a motion to waive their entitlement to notice and agree that even though insufficient notice was given the business of the meeting can be discussed and voted upon without it being ultra vires ?

[hmtcastle]

Where can I find the Foulkes bylaws forum ?

http://bylawsandsuch.lefora.com/

[hmtcastle]

I want to find out if it is OK for members to vote on a motion to waive their entitlement to notice and agree that even though insufficient notice was given the business of the meeting can be discussed and voted upon without it being ultra vires ?

It's not OK.

[Richardkay]

It's not OK.

OK so the only option is to start again and call a new meeting giving the required notice ?

[hmtcastle]

OK so the only option is to start again and call a new meeting giving the required notice ?

Yep (though some here may make an exception if every single member of the organization is present at the meeting for which proper notice wasn't given).

[Richardkay]

Not what I wanted to hear, but thank you for your very prompt response at the weekend too !