Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

previous notice given via motion


Kim Goldsworthy

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, potzbie said:

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.

Assuming you have accurtaly quoted PL (I assume you have, but don't have copy handy), the passage referes to adopting a motion. Moving "to rescind x" is not the same as adopting a motion "to rescind x."  If the motiion "to rescind x" is adopted, there would be nothing left to rescind at the next meeting. And if the motion fails, I don't read the PL passage you quoted as supporting the notion that the mere act of making the motion was sufficient notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall some discussion here that explicit directions to a committee to propose a motion requiring notice constitute notice for that motion, though I'm not sure if there is any explicit text to that effect anywhere. (This is distinguished from a motion requiring notice which is referred to committee, whereby notice is not required to report it because it is already introduced)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

< excerpt, Parliamentary Law , "notice" is in bold >
< page 371 >

Quote

    Committee on Revision of Bylaws. When a society appoints a committee on revision of the bylaws, that in itself is sufficient notice that the committee may submit an entirely new set of bylaws, and therefore members should be prepared for any kind of change. The proposed revision should be printed or typewritten, so that at least a few copies can be distributed among the interested members. In large societies they should be printed and distributed in advance. The restrictions imposed upon amending ordinary amendments proposed to bylaws do not apply to amending a revised set of bylaws submitted by a committee on revision. The proposed new bylaws before being adopted may be perfected by amendments with all the freedom allowed when bylaws are originally adopted. The old bylaws are not pending and therefore are not open to subsidiary amendments. When the chairman of the committee reads the proposed revised bylaws he should say, "By direction of the committee on revision of the bylaws, I move to substitute these for the existing bylaws." The president states the question on the substitute, and then directs the first bylaw or paragraph of the substitute to be read, and asks if any amendments to it are proposed. When it has been suitably amended, which requires only a majority vote, the next paragraph or bylaw is read and it is open to amendment, and so on to the end. When no further amendments are proposed, the president puts the question on adopting the substitute. If the motion is carried by a two-thirds vote, the substitute immediately becomes the bylaws of the society. No vote should be taken on adopting the separate paragraphs or bylaws.

< end of page 371 >
< page 372 >

Quote

 

    If the report of a committee on revision is due at a certain meeting, that is sufficient notice of the amendment so that it can be adopted at that meeting, provided only notice of the amendment is required. But if the committee is not under obligation to report at a certain meeting, notice must be given, in accordance with the bylaws, before the report of the committee can be acted upon. Every requirement of the bylaws for their amendment must be strictly complied with, the same as if the amendment had been proposed by a member instead of by a committee. If the existing bylaws require the proposed amendment to be submitted at the time the notice is given, the amendment (substitute) cannot be acted upon when reported by the committee, but must lie over until the next meeting. Of course it may be informally considered without voting on it.

    Notice of Proposed Amendment. Giving notice of a proposed amendment to the bylaws is incidental to the business of the assembly, and may to a certain extent interrupt business, if necessary, in order to insure its being given. The notice may be given even after the assembly had voted to adjourn, provided the chair has not declared the assembly adjourned. It should not interrupt one while speaking, but if the member is unable to obtain the floor he may say, "Mr. Chairman, I rise to give notice of an amendment to the bylaws," provided he does it before the one to whom the floor has been assigned has commenced speaking. The chairman then directs him to read it, which he does, and hands it to the chairman, who reads it again. Or the member may hand the written notice to the secretary, whose duty it is to read it, or to hand it to the chairman, who will at a suitable time read it. The notice may be in this form:

    Amendment to the Bylaws proposed by A. J. Lawton, Jan. 14, 19--.
    Substitute for See. 2, Art. XII, the following: "Sec. 2 ––.'
                    (Signed)    A. J. Lawton,
                            B. C. Bostwick.
    
    The proposed amendment should be signed by two members because it is virtually a motion that the amendment be adopted, and therefore requires a second. Some organizations require as many as a dozen signatures to a proposed amendment to the constitution or bylaws. The title may be endorsed on the back of the paper and only the amendment and signatures be placed on the face of the sheet.

 

< end of page 372 >

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The act of the assembly in creating and appointing a committee to recommend a bylaws revision pretty clearly implies that the assembly intends to consider a bylaws revision.  I don't see that as having staggering implications.

Furthermore, I see no reason why this principle would not apply to other motions that require or enjoy a lower threshold from previous notice. 

A motion that a committee be appointed to study and report out recommendations for such a motion would, if adopted, fulfill the purposes of previous notice as well as an explicit notice of that intent would.  Merely moving to appoint a committee would not constitute notice, nor would a rejection of that motion, but if adopted, the intent of the assembly becomes clear.  I think there's a strong argument that any further explicit notice would simply be redundant.

A motion to establish a committee would not require previous notice, even when the question it is instructed to consider would.

Also, in this regard, it's worth noting that there's a big difference between a single member of the assembly and a committee-of-one created by the assembly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

The act of the assembly in creating and appointing a committee to recommend a bylaws revision pretty clearly implies that the assembly intends to consider a bylaws revision.  I don't see that as having staggering implications.

Interesting.

I think it does have staggering implications -- in that there is now (or not?) a third way to give previous notice.

***

Review:

To give previous notice under the old rules, you:

     (a.) give oral previous notice in the immediately-prior meeting.

     (b.) give written previous notice in the mailed call-to-meeting.

***

And, if PL holds true per the most current edition (11th) of RONR, we will have a third method:

     (c.) adopt a motion which creates a committee.

(That is what I call "staggering".)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that creating a committee to report back on something, such as a bylaws revision, would not constitute previous notice in the sense contemplated by RONR unless the committee is directed to report back at the next meeting.  To hold otherwise would be tantamount to allowing a member to give previous notice by saying that "I hereby give notice that at some future meeting I will introduce a motion to . . . .".    RONR at page 121 says that the notice needs to be in the call of the meeting or announced "at the preceding meeting".  I think the notice needs to specify that the motion will be introduced at the next meeting.  Likewise, creating a committee to report back with a recommendation would have to specify that the report is to be made at the next meeting in order to constitute previous notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/03/2016 at 8:33 PM, Richard Brown said:

It seems to me that creating a committee to report back on something, such as a bylaws revision, would not constitute previous notice in the sense contemplated by RONR unless the committee is directed to report back at the next meeting.  To hold otherwise would be tantamount to allowing a member to give previous notice by saying that "I hereby give notice that at some future meeting I will introduce a motion to . . . .".    RONR at page 121 says that the notice needs to be in the call of the meeting or announced "at the preceding meeting".  I think the notice needs to specify that the motion will be introduced at the next meeting.  Likewise, creating a committee to report back with a recommendation would have to specify that the report is to be made at the next meeting in order to constitute previous notice.

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recap. -- Excerpts from book "Parliamentary Law" by H. M. Robert.

[p.371] re APPOINTMENT
When a society appoints a committee on revision of the bylaws, that in itself is sufficient notice that the committee may submit an entirely new set of bylaws, and therefore members should be prepared for any kind of change.

[p. 372] re DUE TO REPORT
If the report of a committee on revision is due at a certain meeting, that is sufficient notice of the amendment so that it can be adopted at that meeting, provided only notice of the amendment is required.

***

Then we are agreed?

   • To appoint a committee with that charge -- is sufficient notice.

   • To have such a committee charged to report out at a given meeting -- is sufficient notice.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Recap. -- Excerpts from book "Parliamentary Law" by H. M. Robert.

[p.371] re APPOINTMENT
When a society appoints a committee on revision of the bylaws, that in itself is sufficient notice that the committee may submit an entirely new set of bylaws, and therefore members should be prepared for any kind of change.

[p. 372] re DUE TO REPORT
If the report of a committee on revision is due at a certain meeting, that is sufficient notice of the amendment so that it can be adopted at that meeting, provided only notice of the amendment is required.

***

Then we are agreed?

   • To appoint a committee with that charge -- is sufficient notice.

   • To have such a committee charged to report out at a given meeting -- is sufficient notice.

 

I'm not so sure.  That may be what General Robert  said in "Parliamentary Law", but I still believe that, based on the language currently in RONR, that appointing a committee to propose a bylaws amendment or revision or to do something else will not constitute previous notice in the sense used in RONR unless the report is specifically due at the next meeting.  In addition, as I point out below, language on page 372 somewhat contradicts what you quoted from page 371.

The current edition of RONR simply does not seem to support the first example you used from "Parliamentary Law" about the mere appointing of a committee to propose a bylaws revision constitutes previous notice as currently required by RONR.  It certainly would not comply with a current bylaw requirement that notice of a proposed bylaw amendment (or revision) be submitted in writing at the previous meeting or a certain number of days prior to a regular meeting or be provided in the call of the meeting.

I also call your attention to the second sentence on page 372 of "Parliamentary Law", being the sentence immediately after the sentence you quoted:  "But if the committee is not under obligation to report at a certain meeting, notice must be given, in accordance with the bylaws, before the report of the committee can be acted upon".   The rest of that paragraph makes clear that notice requirements must be complied with regardless of whether it is a committee or a member who is proposing the amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...