Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
See, this is where I'm having problems with the rationale. It's supposed to be difficult to amend a constitution; bylaws should be easier to amend. The idea is that a constitution contains those basic, framework aspects of an organization -- name, purpose, basic structure, etc. -- that the group considers foundational to who they are and how they function. The whole idea is that a simple majority present and voting at any given meeting should not, for example, be able to change the name or purpose of the organization. That's why super-majorities and, perhaps, ratification by constituent groups is required -- to make sure that there is widespread buy-in on a change of such of significance. That's why I would have a problem with just having bylaws.
|
Ok, I understand. But here's the thing.
You should not be able to change bylaws with a 'simple majority'!! (FYI-neither 'simple majority' or 'super majority' are not a proper parliamentary terms, tho I understand you mean majority and 2/3rd majority).
If you read RONR, its quite clear that at a minimum, organizations need to make bylaws difficult to change on a whim (when groups had constitutions, they were even more difficult to change vs bylaws). I think the assumption of RONR is that at a minimum, bylaw amendments should require prior notice (ie you send out to your organization atleast a week or more in advance of the meeting) and requiring a 2/3rd vote of those present. (this is what my parliamentarian club requires) Organizations could have higher requirements for amendment, such as requiring a majority of members to approve (not just a majority present) or the like. For instance with my National Fraternity, changes to our National Bylaws require submission 90 days before our National Convention, which must then go thru reference committees of voting delegates at the committee before they could come to the legislative session, where they require a 3/4 vote for approval. I think many national orgs with regular national conventions follow a similiar process.
There is another document that organizations have that can be changed with a majority vote at a meeting, and that's your standing rules. I've found in a couple of cases were groups have confused constitution & bylaws with bylaws & standing rules. (only example I found was the YMCA's Hi-Y group, that had a set of sample separate 'constitution & bylaws' docs which read like 'bylaws & standing rules'). What you are speaking of being in a constitution is what is today put in bylaws. But what 'constitutes' the group is the purpose of a groups articles of associations/incorporation (yes, this is *usually* a legal document, but that's its purpose).
The standard articles of bylaws are: Name, Object, Members, Officers, Meetings, Executive Board/Committee, Committees, Parliamentary Authority, Amendments. btw.
As noted, all works by parliamentarians have orgs creating bylaws NOT consititutions. Are there groups out there still using separate consitutitions and bylaws. Sure. I believe a few of my org's chapters still do this. And I bet that most if not all of the groups that still do this were established before the 1960s. (the chapter who do this are all older chapters...)
).
Hybrid Mode
