Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'previous notice'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • RONR Message Board – Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised
    • General Discussion
    • Advanced Discussion
    • The Robert’s Rules Website
  • About the Message Board
    • Questions or Comments about the Message Board

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Categories

There are no results to display.


Found 7 results

  1. Assume: Bylaws require only previous notice of amendment, without limitation of the period within which it must be acted upon (i.e., ordinary Robertian notice; no readings; no delays). Assume: In January, the general membership creates a Bylaw Committee. The charge of the Bylaws Committee is to create a full revision of the bylaws. The general membership fixes a "rush" deadline for the final report of the Bylaws Committee -- namely, the next regular meeting (February). Question: May the general membership act upon (adopt!) the revision in the February meeting (i.e., the same meeting as the final report of the Bylaws Committee)?
  2. There are some actions which, upon a timely Point of Order, will turn: (a.) an adopted motion; into (b.) a null-and-void motion. *** There are at least three kinds of behavior which will trigger the above change: (1.) Previous notice was insufficient. -- A member(s) was/were not mailed the notice. (2.) A member(s) was/were not allowed to attend a meeting. (3.) A member(s) was/were not allowed to vote at a meeting. *** Of the above listed behaviors, there is a circumstance where (a.) the adopted motion will stand. (b.) the adopted motion will be rendered null and void. *** Given a timely Point of Order: Q. Which of the behaviors have a circumstance where the adopted motion will stand? Q. Which of the behaviors will always render an adopted motion as null and void? *** The reader may wish to review some key pages in RONR: (1.) page 252, "Remedy for violation of the right to vote". (2.) page 445, the paragraph which begins, "Otherwise, an election may be contested by . . ." and its bullet items. ***
  3. Q. Does RONR Eleventh Edition support the following notion given within the book "Parliamentary Law"? -- That previous notice can be given via the act of adopting a motion? *** Example: The act of creating a committee charged with drafting a revision -- is itself previous notice -- per the book "Parliamentary Law". • No oral announcement of previous notice -- becomes necessary. • No written notice in the call-to-meeting mailed announcement -- becomes necessary. . . . under the book "Parliamentary Law". *** I have not found similar language in RONR 11th edition. Thus my question. *** The implications are staggering! If the concept holds today, then the very act of moving "To Rescind 'X'" implies that previous notice "to rescind 'X' is simultaneously created for the sake of the next meeting.
  4. Did I find a typo, or am I just not understanding? On page 264, ll 9-12 is the statement, “...the rules may not be suspended so as to deny any particular member the right to attend meetings, make motions or nominations, speak in debate, give previous notice, or vote.” Shouldn't the phrase, “give previous notice” read “be given previous notice?” If not, what does it mean to “give previous notice?”
  5. Our bylaws state "These Rules of Order may be amended at any meeting by two-thirds of the voting Membership." No previous notice is required according to the bylaws. So, I have two different issues: Do we have to comply with previous notice if it's not explicitly stated? This is all there is under the amendment section. My reading is that, no, we do not. Since we have an explicit rule regarding the amendment of bylaws that does not include it, it would not automatically require it just because it was in RONR. In other words, we don't have to explicitly say "no previous notice is necessary" in order to prevent having to do it. Is there a motion that, upon having given previous notice to the membership (all members are voting members, quorum is majority plus one), we can circumvent the necessity for two-thirds of the membership? If there is no way, and there is no mention of voting by any means other than what would be default in RONR, what can be done to amend the bylaws even when two-thirds of the membership may never show up at a meeting all at once? My interpretation of voting by mail and other such actions have to be written into the bylaws to be performed, but I could be taking too strict an approach. Page 424 talks of a vote by mail "when authorized in the bylaws", but the "Other methods of voting" on page 412 says they can be expressly ordered by the assembly. Thank you.
  6. Assemblies do not alway follow the recommended phraseology or recommended practice of RONR. There is the 'slop' factor to consider. -- Ignorance of The Book. Q. How much leeway is there to the act of 'previous notice'? Worst Case Scenario: Assume an organization which meets monthly. (This scenario also can be applied to an assembly which meets weekly or daily, whenever the meetings are consecutive and at least as often as quarterly.) In the case of oral previous notice (not written previous notice), if the pro tem chair in the February meeting had missed the January meeting, and if the regular chair (who attended the January meeting) is not present in the February meeting, then how would the pro tem chair of February 'know' or 'be convinced' that oral previous notice was given in January, for a given motion? Q. What are the minimum factors which must be present for a pro tem chair to be reasonably certain that previous notice was given orally in the prior meeting?
  7. For several types of motions, the vote required depends upon whether prior notice was given at the previous meeting or sent to members with the call to meeting. A member wants to give prior notice of a motion but the organization does not issue calls to meetings because they are all regularly scheduled and the President just passes out the agendas at the meetings. The member has asked the Secretary to send an email out to all members providing the notice. The President, who believes the proposed motion would not be in order, told the Secretary not to do so. The member plans on sending the email himself. Will this suffice for notice? if a point of order/appeal should arise on whether proper notice was given, is it decided by the usual vote or does it require a higher threshold because the issue concerns a matter of notice?