Clarification on motion and point of order

[Guest Jennifer]

Our bylaws for PTO state "These bylaws may be amended at any regular or special meeting, providing that previous notice was given in writing at the prior meeting and then sent to all members of the organization by the secretary. Amendments will be approved by a two-thirds vote of those present, assuming a quorum."

Written notice was sent to the members prior to the monthly regular meeting in February stating the proposed changes(2/5/14). The meeting was postponed due to weather and held 2/12.  The proposed changes were read and it was stated they had previously been sent in writing and posted for the members in public.  No motion was made that they were read.  At the regular March meeting a member contested that these could not be voted on because according to Robert's rules there was no motion to accept them as read.  However, they were not up for a vote at that meeting.  He called a point of order when a member made a motion to accept them as read now. The question is, does there have to be a motion to accept them as read when written notice was provided?  Shouldn't the motion occur when they are up for vote.  Meaning at the next regular meeting someone make a motion, a second, then they are debated, and finally the chair states the question.  That is the only time a motion is required, correct?

[Josh Martin]

Our bylaws for PTO state "These bylaws may be amended at any regular or special meeting, providing that previous notice was given in writing at the prior meeting and then sent to all members of the organization by the secretary. Amendments will be approved by a two-thirds vote of those present, assuming a quorum."

Written notice was sent to the members prior to the monthly regular meeting in February stating the proposed changes(2/5/14). The meeting was postponed due to weather and held 2/12.  The proposed changes were read and it was stated they had previously been sent in writing and posted for the members in public.  No motion was made that they were read.  At the regular March meeting a member contested that these could not be voted on because according to Robert's rules there was no motion to accept them as read.  However, they were not up for a vote at that meeting.  He called a point of order when a member made a motion to accept them as read now. The question is, does there have to be a motion to accept them as read when written notice was provided?  Shouldn't the motion occur when they are up for vote.  Meaning at the next regular meeting someone make a motion, a second, then they are debated, and finally the chair states the question.  That is the only time a motion is required, correct?

 

So far as RONR is concerned, no motion is required in order to give previous notice. As you say, the motion would be made at the next meeting, when the motion will actually be debated and voted on. Nothing in the rules you have cited from your bylaws appears to provide otherwise.

[Sean Hunt]

The question is, does there have to be a motion to accept them as read when written notice was provided?  Shouldn't the motion occur when they are up for vote.  Meaning at the next regular meeting someone make a motion, a second, then they are debated, and finally the chair states the question.  That is the only time a motion is required, correct?

There never needs to be a motion to accept them as read. Previous notice is normally given by standing up at a meeting and saying that you will move the motion, or by sending the notice out in the notice of the meeting (your bylaws appear to require both instead of one or the other). The assembly cannot attempt to deny reality by insisting that they did not hear the notice.

[Thomas Ralph]

There is no requirement in RONR to "accept them as read", which is why RONR doesn't say anything about it.

 

What I am concerned about is the apparent postponement of a meeting from February 5th to February 12th. A meeting can't be postponed under RONR, so I'm hoping that either (a) the bylaws provide for postponement of a meeting, and the requirements for the said postponement were followed correctly, or ( where our guest Jennifer said the meeting was postponed, she meant that one or more members turned up on February 5th despite the inclement weather and fixed an adjourned meeting on February 12th.

 

Were the bylaws even voted on at the meeting of February 12th?

[Guest Guest]

Thank you all for the feedback.

 

To clarify, the meeting was cancelled and rescheduled.  SO, it was never convened because of inclement weather.  Written notice and public notice via radio and television was given that the meeting was cancelled and would take place the following week.

 

No they were not voted on in the February meeting because we were working on the mistaken information from prior officers that it required 30 days notice.  However, our bylaws do not give a timeline.

 

It appears to me that one member was using his working knowledge of RONR to take advantage of our lack of knowledge.  The research I have done has been confirmed by each of you that he is mistaken.

[Thomas Ralph]

On the other hand, you still haven't got your bylaws amended, so make sure you give notice again in the manner described, then hold a debate and vote at the next meeting. The previous notice you gave for the meeting of February 5th (about the holding of which on February 12th I still have my doubts) is no longer in effect.

[Josh Martin]

To clarify, the meeting was cancelled and rescheduled.  SO, it was never convened because of inclement weather.  Written notice and public notice via radio and television was given that the meeting was cancelled and would take place the following week.

 

This is not in order unless your bylaws so provide. So far as RONR is concerned, the appropriate procedure in such an instance is for a small number of members to attend the meeting and set up an adjourned meeting for a later date. This action may be taken even in the absence of a quorum.

 

On the other hand, you still haven't got your bylaws amended, so make sure you give notice again in the manner described, then hold a debate and vote at the next meeting. The previous notice you gave for the meeting of February 5th (about the holding of which on February 12th I still have my doubts) is no longer in effect.

 

It seems to me that notice was given at the meeting on Februrary 12th that the motion would be considered at the next regular meeting (although the fact that the legitimacy of that meeting is in question may complicate things).

[Thomas Ralph]

It seems to me that notice was given at the meeting on Februrary 12th that the motion would be considered at the next regular meeting (although the fact that the legitimacy of that meeting is in question may complicate things).

I am open to the possibility that notice was given on February 12th, but it does not appear to have been done at a proper meeting. In the event the meeting on February 12th was proper, then notice would still need to be given by the secretary to all members, in line with the bylaws.

[Guest Jennifer]

The meeting February 5 was not a special meeting, it was a regular meeting cancelled because of weather.

New notice will be given to address the bylaws at the next regular meeting, given all the confusion that has arisen.

We are a PTO and have been very informal in all the years I have attended meetings, and because of that informality no one has been strict in the following of RONR(despite being listed as our parlimentary authority). Therefore, no one was aware that we had to convene to postpone.  It was rescheduled due to weather, fortunately, nothing important was acted upon at that meeting. Simply discussions about past events and upcoming events. As above, new notice will be given about bylaw amendments to be discussed at the upcoming regular monthly meeting.

[Thomas Ralph]

Good to hear. Here's hoping your meetings and bylaw amendments go down as planned in the future.