Can I alter a bylaw to conflict with an ambiguous motion ?

[twolifter]

They may seem generally correct but the devil is in the details and generalizations can often lead one astray. For example, there is frequently some confusion about what constitutes a revision of the bylaws. Many focus on the extent of the proposed changes when the significance of a proposed revision is all about the notice. When you give notice of a proposed revision, you remove the scope-of-the-notice restriction. The end result may be very few changes in the bylaws but, by giving notice of a revision, anything in the bylaws is subject to amendment. Conversely, notice of proposed amendments can include extensive changes without being notice of a revision. In that case, the scope of the notice may be broad but it still imposes limitations.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean when you say (#1) that "you need to vote to change Articles of bylaws as a point of order.". On it's face it's simply not true (but perhaps you intended something different). A motion to amend the bylaws is an ordinary main motion, not a point of order.

There are not eight "rules" for interpreting bylaws, RONR simply provides some suggestions for interpreting bylaws (and any other rules). These are, for the most part, statements of common sense and logic. The list is not meant to be exhaustive (though I think it covers most main issues).

So while there are some general principles of parliamentary procedures (e.g. the rights of members and absentees), you need only spend a little time on this forum to see that the devil is in the details. It's not that the big picture is not important, but that's not the focus of the parliamentarian's eye.

Thanks to both you and Josh in particular, and everyone in general. I wish I had more time to study today.

Part of my problem is learning the vocabulary. I understand things like tabling are commonly misunderstood but I really need to get a good grasp of the terms to avoid much of my confusion, a glossary may be as many pages as the book, but I could sure use one.

[David A Foulkes]

Thanks to both you and Josh in particular, and everyone in general. I wish I had more time to study today.

Part of my problem is learning the vocabulary. I understand things like tabling are commonly misunderstood but I really need to get a good grasp of the terms to avoid much of my confusion, a glossary may be as many pages as the book, but I could sure use one.

For what it's worth, here is the "A" page of one resource. Click the other letters as needed:

http://nancysylveste.../glossary_a.cfm

You can google "glossary of parliamentary terms" to see others, although most seem to deal with legislative bodies, so caution may be the watchword there.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edit (10:04am): twolifter, I would suggest it best to follow up with definitions as offered by RONR to avoid any potential confusion.

[hmtcastle]

For what it's worth, here is the "A" page of one resource. Click the other letters as needed:

http://nancysylvester.com/docs/Resources/glossary/glossary_a.cfm

You can google "glossary of parliamentary terms" to see others, although most seem to deal with legislative bodies, so caution may be the watchword there.

From Ms. Sylvester's site:

Abstain: To verbally refrain from voting.

Looks like caution may be the watchword there as well as I don't think RONR requires a verbal declaration.

[Dan Honemann]

From Ms. Sylvester's site:

Abstain: To verbally refrain from voting.

Looks like caution may be the watchword there as well as I don't think RONR requires a verbal declaration.

"The chair should not call for abstentions in taking a vote, since the number of members who respond to such a call is meaningless. To 'abstain' means not to vote at all, and a member who makes no response if 'abstentions' are called for abstains just as much as one who responds to that effect (see also p. 394)." RONR, 10th ed., p. 43.