meeting with all members present

[Trina]

I don't have any clear-cut answers for this sort of a situation. I suspect that all members must be present at the time that any action is taken in order for that action to be valid (although the question of consent may be a factor).

...

As in many other instances, it is helpful to remember the quotation used by General Robert in the preface to the first edition: "It is much more material that there should be a rule to go by, than what that rule is, that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in business, not subject to the caprice of the chairman, or captiousness of the members." On this point at least, the rule in RONR is clear: the only purpose of the previous notice requirement is the protection of absentees. Knowing that is the clear rule, each organization that judges it would be best served by a different rule can and ought to adopt it.

...

I didn't know the rules for absentees called for the presider/members to be mind readers as to why members become absent before the vote is taken. There either are absentees, or there are none....I'm not fond of shades of gray.

Reading over these assorted comments again, I'm inclined to think that uniform application of the rule would lead to the conclusion that if/when any member leaves, the assembly should stop conducting the business that (normally) would have required prior notice. Or is consent really a factor?

Going back to the situation in post #4 (where 3 members get up and quietly, and to all appearances voluntarily, leave the meeting room)... Suppose a remaining member makes a parliamentary inquiry, "Mr. Chairman, I notice that Joe, Dave, and Betty just left the meeting. Since all of our members are no longer present, is it proper to continue working on the motion that is before us?" What should the chair say?

What if Joe called out, as the three were leaving, "you guys go ahead without us!" ? Would that really make any difference as to what the assembly should properly do after the members leave? Or, does it only indicate that Joe, Dave, and Betty are unlikely to raise a stink (technically a point of order) sometime in the future?

[Dan Honemann]

No problem. Got all day.

Having thought a bit more about it, I've decided that perhaps I should defer to someone who adheres to the view that this rule requiring previous notice protects members present at the meeting from something or other (perhaps from being required to consider a motion that they have not been given time to think about).

[J. J.]

In my opinion, the chair should rule that this point of order is not well taken, explaining that, since all members are present, the rule requiring previous notice has no applicability.

If an appeal is taken from this ruling, I do not think that the chair should disallow it on the grounds that there cannot possibly be another reasonable opinion.

Thank you. I was interested in what would be the appropriate initial ruling of the chair should be. Can he look at the rationale behind the rule? Must he look at the letter of the rule, and ignore the underlying reason for it? You've answered that question in this case.

I think, however, that, whatever ruling is made, it would be subject to appeal, properly. I believe that would ultimately answer some of the ancillary comments regarding notice.

[Guest Guest]

Interesting last question because instead of being absent to prevent consideration I might attend solely to raise the point of order that no required notice was given, thereby memorializing my point in the minutes. As Mr. Honemann notes, I'd appeal his decision.

[Burke Balch]

And yet, in the case at hand where there is no notice provided, there is also no scope of notice, right? So, I fail to see how that argument holds water in the case at hand.

Forgive me, but I'm a little puzzled by this response. My claim -- that the fact that the rules requiring previous notice of a motion also require notice of the content/purport of that motion does not undermine the conclusion that RONR deems a previous notice requirement to be solely a rule protecting absentees (and for that reason inapplicable when all members are present) -- was in answer to the following:

But does previous notice only protect absentees or does it also protect the right of an individual member to not have certain matters considered without it

IMO it's the latter

I am unclear how the fact that "where there is no notice provided, there is no scope of notice" changes the analysis, which is this:

Members may decide whether or not to attend a meeting based on how much they care about what they expect the meeting to consider. That's why if notice is given of a motion, amendment of the motion beyond the scope of the notice would violate the rights of those absentee members, since some of the absent members might have attended had they known a motion making a change greater than the change noticed could be considered. But if all members are present, such a violation cannot occur. It follows that the rule requiring previous notice of the purport of a noticed motion is explained as a means of protecting the rights of absentees, and does not require that one assume a purported rationale to force members to think for the period of time specified for the giving of notice before they can vote on the motion in question.

[J. J.]

Interesting last question because instead of being absent to prevent consideration I might attend solely to raise the point of order that no required notice was given, thereby memorializing my point in the minutes. As Mr. Honemann notes, I'd appeal his decision.

I think that the ruling, no matter what it is, could be appealed. And I think that answer covers a lot of these ancilary questions regarding the purpose of notice.

[David A Foulkes]

Members may decide whether or not to attend a meeting based on how much they care about what they expect the meeting to consider. That's why if notice is given of a motion, amendment of the motion beyond the scope of the notice would violate the rights of those absentee members, since some of the absent members might have attended had they known a motion making a change greater than the change noticed could be considered. But if all members are present, such a violation cannot occur. It follows that the rule requiring previous notice of the purport of a noticed motion is explained as a means of protecting the rights of absentees, and does not require that one assume a purported rationale to force members to think for the period of time specified for the giving of notice before they can vote on the motion in question.

Okay, I'll buy this. Thanks.

So, regarding Trina's question (post #4), if notice is not given but all members are present when the motion (normally requiring notice) is moved, and debate commences without objection (i.e. no Point of Order), and some members leave before the question is put (vote taken and results announced), is the vote null and void due to there then being absentees?

My thinking has been that notice serves to provide the "announcement that the motion will be introduced" (p. 121 ll. 24-25) and that once the motion has been moved (i.e. introduced), the effect of the notice is complete. I'd even go so far as to say that this "introduction" includes up to the chair stating the question and thus putting it in the hands of the assembly, since before that moment it should not normally be considered.

If notice had been properly given, and some members attended specifically because of it but had to leave before the vote, their leaving would create no obstacle to the remaining members continuing consideration and ultimately voting on it. As Gary Novosielski noted, once a member is notified, they can't be de-notified. Does this work for Trina's situation?

[Dan Honemann]

Okay, I'll buy this. Thanks.

So, regarding Trina's question (post #4), if notice is not given but all members are present when the motion (normally requiring notice) is moved, and debate commences without objection (i.e. no Point of Order), and some members leave before the question is put (vote taken and results announced), is the vote null and void due to there then being absentees?

My thinking has been that notice serves to provide the "announcement that the motion will be introduced" (p. 121 ll. 24-25) and that once the motion has been moved (i.e. introduced), the effect of the notice is complete. I'd even go so far as to say that this "introduction" includes up to the chair stating the question and thus putting it in the hands of the assembly, since before that moment it should not normally be considered.

If notice had been properly given, and some members attended specifically because of it but had to leave before the vote, their leaving would create no obstacle to the remaining members continuing consideration and ultimately voting on it. As Gary Novosielski noted, once a member is notified, they can't be de-notified. Does this work for Trina's situation?

I find no reasonable basis for any of this. If a prescribed notice has not been given, it has not been given. This fact doesn't change simply because all members are present at a meeting.

If a motion requiring previous notice is adopted without such notice having been given, a point of order regarding the matter may be raised at any time thereafter, and such a point of order should be held to be well taken. Based upon my understanding of the rules in RONR, an exception to this rule exists in the event that, when the point of order is raised, it can be clearly established that all members were present at the time the motion was adopted. However, I think that this is as far as we can safely go at this point.

[David A Foulkes]

I think that this is as far as we can safely go at this point.

That's far enough for me. Thanks.

[Trina]

I find no reasonable basis for any of this. If a prescribed notice has not been given, it has not been given. This fact doesn't change simply because all members are present at a meeting.

If a motion requiring previous notice is adopted without such notice having been given, a point of order regarding the matter may be raised at any time thereafter, and such a point of order should be held to be well taken. Based upon my understanding of the rules in RONR, an exception to this rule exists in the event that, when the point of order is raised, it can be clearly established that all members were present at the time the motion was adopted. However, I think that this is as far as we can safely go at this point.

The distinction that I am seeing in what you say here is that the lack of previous notice does NOT disappear when all members are present. The fact that all the members have now received an "on-the-spot" notice makes no difference at all to this fact, and does not somehow repair the lack of previous notice. What is said on the top of p. 264 simply means that the assembly, with all members present, has permission to proceed despite the lack of previous notice.

Can I ask once more -- if a member actually moves to suspend the rule requiring previous notice, what should the chair do or say?

[Dan Honemann]

The distinction that I am seeing in what you say here is that the lack of previous notice does NOT disappear when all members are present. The fact that all the members have now received an "on-the-spot" notice makes no difference at all to this fact, and does not somehow repair the lack of previous notice. What is said on the top of p. 264 simply means that the assembly, with all members present, has permission to proceed despite the lack of previous notice.

Can I ask once more -- if a member actually moves to suspend the rule requiring previous notice, what should the chair do or say?

This is obviously an improper way to frame a motion to Suspend the Rules. I think if you frame the motion properly, you will see why it will not be in order. It will be a motion to suspend the rules which interfere with the assembly's doing something that no rule is stopping it from doing.

[J. J.]

The distinction that I am seeing in what you say here is that the lack of previous notice does NOT disappear when all members are present. The fact that all the members have now received an "on-the-spot" notice makes no difference at all to this fact, and does not somehow repair the lack of previous notice. What is said on the top of p. 264 simply means that the assembly, with all members present, has permission to proceed despite the lack of previous notice.

I think you are reading far more into the purpose for notice than is in RONR.

You can argue that notice gives a chance for all members to think about, perhaps research or speak with constituents regarding the motion. Okay, does notice truly require that and may the assembly use other methods for accomplishing that?

Well, first, the assembly may (if it meets as frequenty as quarterly) postpone the motion, giving everyone time to think about it. It may (in all cases) refer the matter to a committee, with instructions to report at the next meeting. It may do these things whether or not the motion requires notice. A majority voting might give itself this additional time to think about the motion.

Second, was the issue raised of the point of order. Both Dan H. and I feel that, whatever the ruling, it could be subject to appeal (Dan, you can jump in there if I've misuderstood you). Again, if the assembly feels that it needs this notice, and time to think about it is required, they may find that, in this case, notice is necessary and decide that the motion is not in order.

In any event, a majority of the entire membership will at least acquiesce to the introduction of the motion requiring notice. On appeal, for example, even if a majority of the members in the room do not vote, they are acquiescing to the judgment of the members that choose to vote. They may ultimately agree with you, that the motion is not in order. They may ultimately agree with me that it would be. Whatever the decision, if there is a need to think about the motion, the assembly will clearly have that opportunity.

[David A Foulkes]

So, while all members are indisputably present, Suspending the Rules to allow the motion without notice is not only unnecessary but is out of order (post #61). Additionally, a Point of Order on the lack of notice is inapplicable at the time (post #58).

But, unless I missed it along the way, I think the question (by Trina) still remains: if one or members leave before the question is put, where does the parliamentary situation stand? That is, would a Point of Order then become (immediately) applicable as soon as there are absentees, even if those absentees had been present during consideration and raised no other timely objection, thereby implicitly (at least) giving consent to allow the motion?

[Dan Honemann]

So, while all members are indisputably present, Suspending the Rules to allow the motion without notice is not only unnecessary but is out of order (post #61).

This is correct.

Additionally, a Point of Order on the lack of notice is inapplicable at the time (post #58).

Post #58 says nothing in so clumsy a fashion as this.

But, unless I missed it along the way, I think the question (by Trina) still remains: if one or members leave before the question is put, where does the parliamentary situation stand? That is, would a Point of Order then become (immediately) applicable as soon as there are absentees, even if those absentees had been present during consideration and raised no other timely objection, thereby implicitly (at least) giving consent to allow the motion?

Apparently you did miss it along the way. As previously stated, I have no clear-cut answer to this. I think much will depend upon exactly what happens, and under what circumstances. Certainly a point of order can be raised (I guess that is what is meant by "become (immediately) applicable"), but whether or not it will be well taken depends upon the facts and circumstances at the time.

[Trina]

I think you are reading far more into the purpose for notice than is in RONR.

Actually, I am not committed to reading purpose into a requirement for notice. Rather, I have repeatedly questioned why an evaluation of purpose is appropriate or necessary at all when trying to determine what a (particular organization's) rule requiring notice actually says. As I've asked before, why isn't POI #1 applicable (specifically the statement that 'an ambiguity must exist before there is any reason for interpretation')? Trying to determine the underlying purpose of a clearly stated rule seems to me to be a form of interpretation.

You can argue that notice gives a chance for all members to think about, perhaps research or speak with constituents regarding the motion. Okay, does notice truly require that and may the assembly use other methods for accomplishing that?

Well, first, the assembly may (if it meets as frequenty as quarterly) postpone the motion, giving everyone time to think about it. It may (in all cases) refer the matter to a committee, with instructions to report at the next meeting. It may do these things whether or not the motion requires notice. A majority voting might give itself this additional time to think about the motion.

Second, was the issue raised of the point of order. Both Dan H. and I feel that, whatever the ruling, it could be subject to appeal (Dan, you can jump in there if I've misuderstood you). Again, if the assembly feels that it needs this notice, and time to think about it is required, they may find that, in this case, notice is necessary and decide that the motion is not in order.

Yes, this makes sense.

[Trina]

...

But, unless I missed it along the way, I think the question (by Trina) still remains: if one or members leave before the question is put, where does the parliamentary situation stand? That is, would a Point of Order then become (immediately) applicable as soon as there are absentees, even if those absentees had been present during consideration and raised no other timely objection, thereby implicitly (at least) giving consent to allow the motion?

...

Apparently you did miss it along the way. As previously stated, I have no clear-cut answer to this. I think much will depend upon exactly what happens, and under what circumstances. Certainly a point of order can be raised (I guess that is what is meant by "become (immediately) applicable"), but whether or not it will be well taken depends upon the facts and circumstances at the time.

I'm still trying to understand why there is this uncertainty based on facts and circumstances. Isn't the language on pp. 263-264 clear that rules of this type simply cannot be suspended 'when any member is absent'? Is it the sentence on p. 263 -- 'Rules protecting absentees cannot be suspended, even by unamimous consent or an actual unanimous vote, because the absentees do not consent to such suspension.' -- that introduces the uncertainty? [emphasis added in the cited sentence]

Is it the degree or nature of the consent (when members who were present when the matter was introduced get up and leave during the meeting) that must be considered?

If that is the case, it seems that any indication of consent from departing members should find its way into the minutes in some form. (Which sort of brings me back to post #1 in this thread, I guess).