TREBOR

What if the bylaws are quite about requiring how notice is to be sent; except for time and place shall be determined by the BOD, 30 day notice, and a statement that states: Under Committees, "Provide the official call at the direction of the BOD. " Is that statement enough to overrule RONR (2th ed.) 9:5?

Thank you for your answers. I thought that was the case,; however I did not know where to find it in RONR.

Report post Posted just now Is this a regular meeting or a special meeting? Do your bylaws require 30 days notice for both regular meetings and special meetings? Also, are your regular meetings on a regular schedule, such as the second Tuesday of each month at the same time and place? Is this provided for in your bylaws? Generally, if the notice requirement for a meeting is not complied with, any business conducted at the meeting would be invalid. However, let's first make sure that your bylaws actually require individual notice of each meeting It will help if you can actually quote the bylaw provision regarding notice. Please quote it exactly, don't paraphrase It is a semi-annual meeting, required in the spring and another in the fall. See below for the bylaw provision. J. "The official call of the Semi-annual Conclaves shall be distributed to all member clubs’ presidents and delegates at least thirty (30) days prior to the conclave." "Conclave" is the organization's name for these meetings.

The bylaws require a meeting notice of thirty (30) days. The notice is not sent out 18 days before the meeting. Is the meeting a valid meeting? Where in RONR can I find the answer

One last post on the question: Page 499, Question # 248 of Parliamentary Law pretty well cleared up the issue when the answer to the question, in part, reads: "A resolution or order is just as much in force whether recorded or not."

Alexis,thank you and Henry M. Robert for your answers. Page 499, Question # 248 of Parliamentary Law pretty well cleared up the issue when the answer to the question, in part, reads: "A resolution or order is just as much in force whether recorded or not." As parliamentarian for an organization that leaves out of minutes that should be in the minutes such as main motions, Parliamentary Law really cleared up the question for me. I just couldn't believe that the motion would be mute because the secretary didn't record it.

Tthe secretary wrote the minutes of the previous meeting the night before the meeting at which the minutes were to be approved and that meeting occurs more than three months later (shouldn't have, but things happen) and the secretary realized her error, showed the motion to the affected parties immediately following the meeting was adjourned. Too late to call the meeting back to order. It seems to me that the fact that the motion was adopted and was in effect that it would take a motion to rescind something previously adopted, even though the minutes were approved and even the member who made the motion didn't realize that it was made at the immediately previous meeting but did in fact quote the motion he made during the present meeting. It seems to me that I better have a recording of all the meetings I attend, which are many. As I understand Mr. Honemann, if the president or even a board doesn't like an adopted motion they could tell the secretary not to record the motion (many secretaries would oblige) and it would have the effect of rescinding the motion without a motion to rescind something previously adopted unless of course someone remembers and corrects the minutes later with a motion to amend something previously adopted. A special meeting to correct minutes is impracticable because the members are scattered state wide and the issue will be mute by the next scheduled meeting. The member now realizing that the motion was made at the previous meeting will make the motion to amend something previously adopted to correct those minutes.

I read the tread Richard referred to paying particular attention to the post by Dan Honemann. The motion made was not a new policy; however was made and adopted to clarify policy that was already in place. The individual(s) that do not desire to follow the policy talked to the secretary who showed the motion form where it had been adopted. The individual(s) who want to interpret the bylaws as they desire rather than the intent at the time the bylaws were adopted.

A main motion was made and adopted by the BOD; however was not recorded in the minutes as the secretary waited until the last minute to write the minutes. Meetings are one every quarter; however no one caught the correction made the correction to record the motion. Now the committee chair that the motion affects states that since he wasn't at the meeting at which the motion was made and the motion was not recorded in the "official record" (the minutes) then he doesn't have to follow it until it becomes part of the official recorded. His statement : "I’m sure you can appreciate the need to have this motion included in the minutes and when, and if, the minutes are corrected to include it, it will be binding." Another correction to the minutes cannot be made until the next BOD meeting when the issue would be mute. Is the motion valid even though the motion has not been recorded in the minutes?