Bylaw Amendments

[Guest Katiebuk]

When putting a bylaw amendment to vote, can there be two choices? In other words, can the membership choose between two different amendments and also have the choice to choose none of the above?

[Chris Harrison]

In other words, can the membership choose between two different amendments

A member can offer an amendment to the proposed amendment (provided it falls within the scope of notice) and the membership would vote on whether that amendment should be made in place of the original proposed amendment. All the details is too much to go into in this little box here so see RONR pp. 125-160 (for the motion to Amend) and pp. 573-580 (for amending the bylaws).

and also have the choice to choose none of the above?

Yes by voting down the amendment to the proposed amendment and then the original proposed amendment

[hmtcastle]

When putting a bylaw amendment to vote, can there be two choices?

The process Mr. H. describes is sometimes referred to as "perfecting the motion".

[Dan Honemann]

When putting a bylaw amendment to vote, can there be two choices? In other words, can the membership choose between two different amendments and also have the choice to choose none of the above?

The short answer to your question is "no".

It is important to recognize the distinction between an ordinary motion and an election (a proposed amendment to the bylaws is an ordinary motion, not an election). In the case of an ordinary motion, the assembly can choose either to agree to what the motion proposes (with or without amending it first), or it can refuse to agree to it (vote "no"). In the case of an election, the assembly cannot properly refuse to do anything, it must make a choice (for example, it cannot very well refuse to decide who shall be its Treasurer, or decide where its next convention will be held).

[George Mervosh]

I'm not sure we're reading into the heart Katie's question correctly (but honestly Katie it's too concisely worded with inadequate information).

I'm thinking this passage might be more on target: " If notice is given of several amendments which conflict so that all cannot be given effect, the chair should arrange them in a logical order, much as in the case of filling blanks (Section 12), generally taking the least inclusive amendment first and the most inclusive last so that the last one adopted is given effect." RONR, p. 576

And as Dan notes, they can vote no on any or all of them.

[Guest Katiebuk]

I'm not sure we're reading into the heart Katie's question correctly (but honestly Katie it's too concisely worded with inadequate information).

I'm thinking this passage might be more on target: " If notice is given of several amendments which conflict so that all cannot be given effect, the chair should arrange them in a logical order, much as in the case of filling blanks (Section 12), generally taking the least inclusive amendment first and the most inclusive last so that the last one adopted is given effect." RONR, p. 576

And as Dan notes, they can vote no on any or all of them.

[Guest Katiebuk]

George, here's what's happening and my apologies for being so concise with inadequate information

The private club that I belong to was founded over 100 years ago as a mens' club and bylaws were created. Back in the 1950s, a ladies' auxiliary was installed which originally consisted of members' wives, and the ladies' auxiliary created their own bylaws. Over the next two decades, the membership in the ladies' auxiliary broadened to include immediate female family members (i.e., mothers, sisters, daughters), and then in the late 80s, the ladies' auxiliary revised their bylaws yet again to open membership to any woman over the age of 21, whether related to a mens' club member or not. The ladies' auxiliary volunteer efforts raise close to $15K net annually through weekly dinners, events, parties, etc.,

Two years ago, the mens' club executive board became concerned with state liquor laws (supposedly) and declared that the ladies' auxiliary could no longer be open to any woman over the age of 21 - that it needed to be comprised of spouses only. In response, we closed our membership until we could come to an agreeable resolution with the men.

Last year, the mens' club tried unsuccessfully to amend their bylaws so that women could become full members of our club, essentially doing away with the gender restriction of their original bylaws. After that bylaws amendment vote failed, the ladies' auxiliary was once again in limbo, with a closed membership and dwindling volunteer participation. We feel that the men that voted against the full membership for women bylaws amendment did not realize that a no vote could mean the end of the ladies auxiliary (and the aforementioned dinners, parties, etc.), because the implications of a no vote were never fully explained to the mens' membership.

The men are planning to put the full membership issue to a vote again this spring. Because there is a good chance that the vote will fail again, we wanted to give the mens' club members a choice - either vote to make women full members or vote to have the mens' club recognize the ladies' auxiliary as a social club within the overall club with limited voting privileges, and open it up again to any woman over the age of 21. No one in either the mens' or ladies' club knows if this is allowed under Roberts Rules, which we defer to on issues not addressed in our own bylaws.

Hopefully this helps - any thoughts?

[hmtcastle]

any thoughts?

It's very doubtful you'll find the answers to your questions in RONR or, therefore, on this forum.

You say the ladies' auxiliary was "installed" (as part of the mens' club?) and yet you say it has its own bylaws. So you'll need to first determine what authority, if any, the mens' club has over the ladies' auxiliary.

The proper interpretation of bylaws requires reading them in their entirety, something that's beyond the scope of this forum.

[George Mervosh]

I think the cited passage answers your question. Propose multiple amendments, vote on the one that's least inclusive (your latter proposal) first, the other proposal second....the final one which gets adopted (assuming any of them are) is given effect.

[Chris Harrison]

George, here's what's happening and my apologies for being so concise with inadequate information

The private club that I belong to was founded over 100 years ago as a mens' club and bylaws were created. Back in the 1950s, a ladies' auxiliary was installed which originally consisted of members' wives, and the ladies' auxiliary created their own bylaws. Over the next two decades, the membership in the ladies' auxiliary broadened to include immediate female family members (i.e., mothers, sisters, daughters), and then in the late 80s, the ladies' auxiliary revised their bylaws yet again to open membership to any woman over the age of 21, whether related to a mens' club member or not. The ladies' auxiliary volunteer efforts raise close to $15K net annually through weekly dinners, events, parties, etc.,

Two years ago, the mens' club executive board became concerned with state liquor laws (supposedly) and declared that the ladies' auxiliary could no longer be open to any woman over the age of 21 - that it needed to be comprised of spouses only. In response, we closed our membership until we could come to an agreeable resolution with the men.

Last year, the mens' club tried unsuccessfully to amend their bylaws so that women could become full members of our club, essentially doing away with the gender restriction of their original bylaws. After that bylaws amendment vote failed, the ladies' auxiliary was once again in limbo, with a closed membership and dwindling volunteer participation. We feel that the men that voted against the full membership for women bylaws amendment did not realize that a no vote could mean the end of the ladies auxiliary (and the aforementioned dinners, parties, etc.), because the implications of a no vote were never fully explained to the mens' membership.

The men are planning to put the full membership issue to a vote again this spring. Because there is a good chance that the vote will fail again, we wanted to give the mens' club members a choice - either vote to make women full members or vote to have the mens' club recognize the ladies' auxiliary as a social club within the overall club with limited voting privileges, and open it up again to any woman over the age of 21. No one in either the mens' or ladies' club knows if this is allowed under Roberts Rules, which we defer to on issues not addressed in our own bylaws.

Hopefully this helps - any thoughts?

First question is if the mens club actually has the authority to dictate who can be members of the ladies' auxiliary (and if so is there some rule that can be pointed to that would support that)? If the mens club can dictate who can be members then one option is for one member of the mens club to introduce the motion to make the ladies full members and another member can introduce an amendment recognizing the ladies' auxiliary and granting limited voting rights in the mens club (and any other combinations and permutations of the bylaws can also be posed as amendments).

[tctheatc]

I think it would make the most sense to have 2 proposals. 1) make women full members. 2) recognize the ladies' auxiliary as a social club with limited voting privileges and open to women 21+. Consider #1 1st. If it passes, great. And it would then render the 2nd proposal out of order (would it not?) because it would conflict with the 1st. If the 1st fails, then introduce the 2nd proposal.

Why move to make women full members then amend that to give them limited rights?

[Josh Martin]

I think it would make the most sense to have 2 proposals. 1) make women full members. 2) recognize the ladies' auxiliary as a social club with limited voting privileges and open to women 21+. Consider #1 1st. If it passes, great.

The least inclusive amendment should be voted on first, so that all amendments are considered, and the last one adopted is given effect. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 575, lines 20-26) Based on this principle, the second proposal should be voted on first.

And it would then render the 2nd proposal out of order (would it not?) because it would conflict with the 1st.

The second proposal would not be out of order and should not be dropped from consideration, even if the assembly unwisely votes on it second. If the first amendment is adopted, the second Bylaw amendment then seeks to amend the Bylaws as amended. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 574, lines 7-12; pg. 575, line 31 - pg. 576, lines 5)

Why move to make women full members then amend that to give them limited rights?

As you suggest, this is illogical, which is why the "limited rights" option should be considered first. Nonetheless, all amendments for which proper notice has been given are entitled to be considered.

[tctheatc]

The least inclusive amendment should be voted on first, so that all amendments are considered, and the last one adopted is given effect. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 575, lines 20-26) Based on this principle, the second proposal should be voted on first.

Thanks for pointing that out; that makes sense.

[Guest Katiebuk]

Thanks everyone for your feedback!