Did I find a typo?

[The Other David]

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?”

[Hieu H. Huynh]

"Give previous notice" means to announce that a motion will be introduced at the next meeting.

[The Other David]

Exactly my point. The individual member does not have the right to “give previous notice” in the context of “attend meetings, make motions or nominations, speak in debate,” but does have the right to “be given previous notice” of a meeting. The word “give” would refer to an obligation of the executive officers, not a right of the individual member. Of course, I may be just slow.

[George Mervosh]

Have you read p. 3, ll. 1-9?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

3 minutes ago, The Other David said:

The individual member does not have the right to “give previous notice” in the context of “attend meetings, make motions or nominations, speak in debate,” but does have the right to “be given previous notice” of a meeting. The word “give” would refer to an obligation of the executive officers, not a right of the individual member. Of course, I may be just slow.

Both directions hold.

   • I am a member. I have the right to give previous notice.

   • I am a member. Where another member has given previous notice, I have the right to receive previous notice so given.

[The Other David]

So I think I hear you saying that the individual member has the right to “give previous notice” that he intends to make a certain motion at the next meeting? I think I'm having a hard time understanding why that is a right and not an obligation.

[George Mervosh]

I'm under no obligation to give previous notice of a motion to rescind, or to amend something previously adopted unless a rule requires it.......as bylaw amendments often do.  But  not for other motions.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Even then, it is NOT the receipt of previous notice which is fundamental -- since the previous notice can be done orally, i.e., by announcement.

It is possible that the session (in the technical Robertian sense) will be one where no written mailed previous notice ever goes out, of an oral announcement of previous notice -- as would be the case in a multi-day convention. In a long convention, previous notice could be given on Day One; and be reached or exercised on Day Last.

Note that no mailing, nor telephoning; nor emailing; will have occurred, by the Secretary, or any officer.

[The Other David]

Okay, I can see why it's not an obligation. So, what the statement on page 264 is saying is that I, as a member, have the right to notify other members of my intention to bring a certain matter before the assembly?

[Joshua Katz]

It should be noted, by the way, that you have this right, not because you're an attention-seeker who likes to announce things before doing them, but because denying you the right to give notice would change the vote requirements for certain motions.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

5 minutes ago, The Other David said:

S1.) So I think I hear you saying that the individual member has the right to “give previous notice” that he intends to make a certain motion at the next meeting?

S2.) I think I'm having a hard time understanding why that is a right and not an obligation.

S1 is per Robert's Rules of Order -- i.e., the act of giving.

***

S2, where you are not referring to giving, but are referring to receipt, is a horse of a different kettle of fish (mixed metaphor).

You are asserting that "receipt is a right".

But it is not.

Where previous notice is given orally, by announcement in a meeting, then the absentee members will continue to be ignorant of the previous notice so given, if the meeting is a series of consecutive meetings conducted under one order of business -- as would be the case in a multi-day convention. or multi-day annual meeting.

Thus, it is not a fundamental principle that an absentee member receive (orally-given) previous notice as would be the case in a multi-day "session" (convention or annual meeting).

***

[The Other David]

Sorry George, I missed your post when you first made it. The statement on page 3, ll 3-9 certainly clarifies this matter a great deal.

[The Other David]

And I think the right to give such notice is also helpful to me as a member in that in giving such notice, I may also be garnering support for the motion I intend to make.

[Joshua Katz]

50 minutes ago, The Other David said:

And I think the right to give such notice is also helpful to me as a member in that in giving such notice, I may also be garnering support for the motion I intend to make.

That was my point.  It may be helpful for that purpose, but I highly doubt that this is a reason to make it a right.  Lots of other things would also help you garner support - for instance, letting you speak in favor of your motion when you give notice, but that isn't allowed.  Letting you give out beer when giving notice would also help, and also isn't allowed.  I don't think you have that right because it helps you in a political sense, but rather because it has a parliamentary effect that, at times, cannot be achieved in another way.  

[g40]

One example where "giving previous notice" would be to rescind or amend something previously adopted. The threshold for rescinding or amending something previously adopted is (or may be) lower if previous notice is given by a member of an organization.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/7/2016 at 0:37 PM, The Other David said:

So I think I hear you saying that the individual member has the right to “give previous notice” that he intends to make a certain motion at the next meeting? I think I'm having a hard time understanding why that is a right and not an obligation.

The member does not have an obligation to give previous notice of his intent to make a motion at the next meeting.

But he might very well want to exercise his right to give previous notice because not doing so in some cases would raise the vote threshold for the motion.