Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Notice for *any* question


mikalac

Recommended Posts

Wherever RONR requires that notice of intention to make a motion be included in (or with) the call of a meeting for any reason, then the secretary is obliged to do so. Otherwise, as far as the rules in RONR are concerned, the secretary is under no such obligation.

 

There is nothing in RONR that requires that notice be sent just because there is a possibility of serious disagreement as to whether or not a motion should be adopted, or simply because a member wants the notice to be included.

 

Yes, of course.  I'm not saying it's required.  It's clearly not.  

 

But I also think that a secretary with a tendency toward coöperation (yes, they do exist), could agree to send out notices when supplied with a reasonable lead time, without needing a specific rule to allow (require?) it, especially if it was to be included in a meeting call that was going out anyway.  At least I hope so.

 

There's no argument over the "required" part.  Like so many things, it's only required when it's required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be the case that the Secretary is ignorant of the rules, and the submitter of the notice is correct about the rules.

 

Example:

Assume a certain thing (e.g,. dues amount? budget ceiling?) is controlled by a special rule of order, or controlled by a standing rule.

A member asks the Secretary to include a notice to amend a standing rule, "Dues are $10", to strike out 10 and insert a blank.

Secretary is dumbfounded and flabbergasted.

Secretary suppresses the notice, because the Secretary reasons, "Hey, it isn't a bylaw. It isn't related to elections. So the notice is superfluous. You can always [amend the dues amount / amend the budget] on the fly, without notice."

 

The Secretary must have perfect knowledge of 100% of the rules of the organization and accurate parliamentary knowledge of the purpose of giving previous notice, to suppress the notice.

 

Since we know that no (few?) Secretaries possess perfect knowlege of all such rules, then the Secretary should assume that the member might be accurate in the member's knowledge of the proper use of giving notice, or at least err on the forgiving side.

 

If the notice actually harms the organization, or interferes with the mission statement of the organization, then an argument could be made that the Secretary may suppress the notice.

 

But I cannot imagine such harm being done, just by giving notice. -- There isn't even a motion, yet.  Just a "purport."

And a "purport" is highly unlikely to be dangerous or illegal.

No Point of Order is possible, yet. No Objection to Consideration is possible yet.

It's just a potentional motion inside the notice.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sticking with my original statement in post No 10:  It seems appropriate and prudent for the secretary to include a notice from a member that he intends to introduce a certain motion at the next meeting unless for some reason dong so is unduly burdensome.  I don't see how giving notice of a normal motion of only a few words is unduly burdensome to a secretary. 

 

I would certainly not be inclined to vote for such a secretary for higher office if he/she balks at including in the call of the meeting a notice that says "John Smith has given notice that he intents to introduce a motion at the meeting that all kids wear zebra suits at the Halloween party on October 31."   Maybe Mr. Smith wants members to have advance notice of the motion so the parents can talk to their kids ahead of time to see if they are ok with wearing the zebra suits.  That type of attitude on the part of the secretary strikes me as coming from someone who might begrudingly do what is absolutely required, but not one bit more.  You know, the "It's not my job" type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm the secretary and I think the motion is stupid, it would be unduly burdensome to me if I have to send it out. But that's just me.

Unduly burdensome....really???

 

How is that any different from the secretary including a brief statement of the name of the speaker of the program in the call of the meeting?  I bet that requirement isn't in the bylaws, either, but it is routinely done.  Is doing that unduly burdensome?  Or does it depend on whether you like the speaker or program topic?  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm the secretary and I think the motion is stupid, it would be unduly burdensome to me if I have to send it out. But that's just me.

You will have done a disservice:

* to the organization

* to the member.

 

A secretary who will not send out a harmless (but stupid) notice will be a former-secretary.

 

All you need to have done is to contact the presdient, the highest ranking administrative office, and have the president take responsibilty, for suppressing a notice which creates no danger, no harm.

 

It just isn't the job of a low-ranking officer to gate-keep notices.

RONR grants no gate-keeping duty to the secretary regarding notices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you and Kim agree with my original idea: The secretary must give notice to any member requesting it, even if not required by RR. Seems that some members here disagree with you both, but I'm on your side (naturally) and will ignore their advice.

 

If a society wishes to adopt a rule requiring that the Secretary must include any notice requested, it is free to do so.

 

I'm sticking with my original statement in post No 10:  It seems appropriate and prudent for the secretary to include a notice from a member that he intends to introduce a certain motion at the next meeting unless for some reason dong so is unduly burdensome.  I don't see how giving notice of a normal motion of only a few words is unduly burdensome to a secretary. 

 

It may become unduly burdensome in a society which processes a great deal of business if a number of members start taking advantage of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will have done a disservice:

* to the organization

* to the member.

 

A secretary who will not send out a harmless (but stupid) notice will be a former-secretary.

 

All you need to have done is to contact the presdient, the highest ranking administrative office, and have the president take responsibilty, for suppressing a notice which creates no danger, no harm.

 

It just isn't the job of a low-ranking officer to gate-keep notices.

RONR grants no gate-keeping duty to the secretary regarding notices.

Nowhere in RONR does it say that the president has the authority to tell the secretary how to do his job. Nor does it say that the president is a higher ranking officer than the secretary. It is fundamental to parliamentary law that all members are equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a society wishes to adopt a rule requiring that the Secretary must include any notice requested, it is free to do so.

 

You have it backwards.

 

If a society wishes to adopt a rule empowering the secretary to cherry-pick which notices the Secretary wishes to include, and which to exclude, then the organization is free to do so.

 

Until then, the secretary has no such EDITOR power, as far as RONR 11th edition is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nowhere in RONR does it say that the president has the authority to tell the secretary how to do his job.

Nor does it say that the president is a higher ranking officer than the secretary.

It is fundamental to parliamentary law that all members are equal.

Inside a meeting, yes, "all members are equal."

 

Outside of a meeting, the presdident is the highest administrative officer.

 

RONR has a rule of succession for the office of president.

RONR holds no such sucesstion rule for VP, Tr., Sec.

So RONR treats this office differently.

And I assume that there is reason for the unique treatment.

 

LIke nature, RONR abhors a vacuum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inside a meeting, yes, "all members are equal."

 

Outside of a meeting, the presdident is the highest administrative officer.

 

RONR has a rule of succession for the office of president.

RONR holds no such sucesstion rule for VP, Tr., Sec.

So RONR treats this office differently.

And I assume that there is reason for the unique treatment.

 

LIke nature, RONR abhors a vacuum.

You would do well to go reread the section on the duties of the officers. On page 456, it makes it very clear that the president has no duties outside of presiding at meetings unless additional duties are included in the bylaws. The secretary, on the other hand, has significant duties that extend outside of the meeting. It is the secretary who certifies documents coming from the society. It is the secretary who furnishes delegates with credentials. The secretary even has the responsibility of preparing an order of business to be used by the president. This would seem to indicate that if anyone is telling anyone what to do, it is the secretary telling the president. And frequently, that is what happens because secretaries tend to keep their job and presidents change quickly. A new president is likely to turn to the more experienced secretary for guidance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No member can be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership –

or of any basic rights concomitant to them, such as

the right to make nominations or

to give previous notice of a motion – except through disciplinary proceedings.

[RONR page 3]

 

To repeat.

 

No secretary can abridge a right of membership.

Like "to give previous notice of a motion."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a society wishes to adopt a rule requiring that the Secretary must include any notice requested, it is free to do so.

 

You have it backwards.

 

If a society wishes to adopt a rule empowering the secretary to cherry-pick which notices the Secretary wishes to include, and which to exclude, then the organization is free to do so.

 

Until then, the secretary has no such EDITOR power, as far as RONR 11th edition is concerned.

 

Josh has this right. There must be a requirement that previous notice be given for there to be a requirement that it be included in the call of the meeting (RONR, 11th ed., p. 121, ll. 21-30).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh has this right. There must be a requirement that previous notice be given for there to be a requirement that it be included in the call of the meeting (RONR, 11th ed., p. 121, ll. 21-30).

Suppose I put the following section into my bylaws Magnum Opus to define the requirement and prevent arguments over the matter:

 

"Owner Right to Notice. The Secretary shall include in every notice of owner meetings all Owner requests for notice on questions involving Association purchases in excess of $10,000. The request must be made at least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting date. If required, the Secretary shall suggest to the requester changes to conform with bylaws language. If the request is rejected because it violates the Governing Documents, then the Secretary shall promptly inform the requester of the reason for the rejection. If notice was sent earlier than 15 days prior to the meeting date, then the Secretary shall issue an amended notice to the community to include the request."

 

Note: Per current bylaws, notice of meeting must be sent between 10 and 60 days prior to the meeting date.

 

Any problems with this addition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose I put the following section into my bylaws Magnum Opus to define the requirement and prevent arguments over the matter:

 

"Owner Right to Notice. The Secretary shall include in every notice of owner meetings all Owner requests for notice on questions involving Association purchases in excess of $10,000. The request must be made at least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting date. If required, the Secretary shall suggest to the requester changes to conform with bylaws language. If the request is rejected because it violates the Governing Documents, then the Secretary shall promptly inform the requester of the reason for the rejection. If notice was sent earlier than 15 days prior to the meeting date, then the Secretary shall issue an amended notice to the community to include the request."

 

Note: Per current bylaws, notice of meeting must be sent between 10 and 60 days prior to the meeting date.

 

Any problems with this addition?

 

I would suggest striking out the middle section.

 

"Owner Right to Notice. The Secretary shall include in every notice of owner meetings all Owner requests for notice on questions involving Association purchases in excess of $10,000. The request must be made at least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting date. If required, the Secretary shall suggest to the requester changes to conform with bylaws language. If the request is rejected because it violates the Governing Documents, then the Secretary shall promptly inform the requester of the reason for the rejection. If notice was sent earlier than 15 days prior to the meeting date, then the Secretary shall issue an amended notice to the community to include the request."

 

If the secretary is knowledgeable of such things and a nice person, the secretary will probably make suggestions anyway. As for rejecting it, if the bylaws say notice must be sent, the secretary must send notice. That doesn't prevent the secretary warning the person if the motion is such that it is likely to be ruled out of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest striking out the middle section.

 

"Owner Right to Notice. The Secretary shall include in every notice of owner meetings all Owner requests for notice on questions involving Association purchases in excess of $10,000. The request must be made at least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting date. If required, the Secretary shall suggest to the requester changes to conform with bylaws language. If the request is rejected because it violates the Governing Documents, then the Secretary shall promptly inform the requester of the reason for the rejection. If notice was sent earlier than 15 days prior to the meeting date, then the Secretary shall issue an amended notice to the community to include the request."

 

If the secretary is knowledgeable of such things and a nice person, the secretary will probably make suggestions anyway. As for rejecting it, if the bylaws say notice must be sent, the secretary must send notice. That doesn't prevent the secretary warning the person if the motion is such that it is likely to be ruled out of order.

I like the suggestions. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term previous notice (or notice), as applied to necessary conditions for the adoption of certain motions, has a particular meaning in parliamentary law. 

A requirement of previous notice means that announcement that the motion will be introduced―indicating its exact content as described below―must be included in the call of the meeting (p. 4) at which the motion will be brought up, or, as a permissible alternative, if no more than a quarterly time interval (see pp. 89-90) will have elapsed since the preceding meeting, the announcement must be made at the preceding meeting.

 

[RONR page 121 lines 21-30]

 

What about the conflict gong on?

 

The member thinks previous notice is applicable.

The secretary thinks previous notice is not applicable.

 

In a scenario the opposite of the original posters -- (like my standing rule example) --

Q. If the member is right, and the secretary is wrong,

then how does the member get previous notice

included into the call of the meeting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest striking out the middle section.

 

"Owner Right to Notice. The Secretary shall include in every notice of owner meetings all Owner requests for notice on questions involving Association purchases in excess of $10,000. The request must be made at least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting date. If required, the Secretary shall suggest to the requester changes to conform with bylaws language. If the request is rejected because it violates the Governing Documents, then the Secretary shall promptly inform the requester of the reason for the rejection. If notice was sent earlier than 15 days prior to the meeting date, then the Secretary shall issue an amended notice to the community to include the request."

 

If the secretary is knowledgeable of such things and a nice person, the secretary will probably make suggestions anyway. As for rejecting it, if the bylaws say notice must be sent, the secretary must send notice. That doesn't prevent the secretary warning the person if the motion is such that it is likely to be ruled out of order.

 

I would consider striking the last sentence, too.  Two reasons: First, the secretary and membership might balk at her possibly having to send out a second notice, making it harder for  you to get your bylaw amendment approved.  Second, you should try to get any such notices to her before she sends out her call to the meeting.  Why make it hard on people?   As a practical matter, when are the meeting notices usually sent out?  Change the 15 days to 20 or 30 days if you want to, but I think the requirement that the secretary send out a second notice if she has already sent out the call of the meeting is going to cause you problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[RONR page 121 lines 21-30]

 

What about the conflict gong on?

 

The member thinks previous notice is applicable.

The secretary thinks previous notice is not applicable.

 

In a scenario the opposite of the original posters -- (like my standing rule example) --

Q. If the member is right, and the secretary is wrong,

then how does the member get previous notice

included into the call of the meeting?

 

Just as there is an expectation that the president will know and follow the rules while he is presiding, I believe there is an expectation that the secretary will know and follow the rules related to that office. And just as the option when the president doesn't know or follow the rules is to appeal to the society, the same is the case with the secretary. Of course, that appeal must occur within a meeting, so I don't believe there is a way to overrule the secretary and force notice to be sent prior to the meeting. However, there may be other options, such as they might instruct the secretary to send notice prior to the next meeting. They might call a special meeting to handle the motion. Other than than, the person who will make the motion may seek assistance from others (such as the president or the parliamentarian) in persuading the secretary to their point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez.  This is being turned into an act of Congress and a Federal Case all one.  The secretary should just send the doggone notice regardless of whether she HAS to.  The sample I used is a whopping 28 words.  Any competent secretary ought to be able  to handle  adding 28 words to the call of the meeting that is going out anyway.  If it gets out of hand with dozens of people wanting her to send notices.... something I bet heavily will not happen... then pass a special rule that says she doesn't have to do it unless it's for a motion where previous notice is required or affects the vote threshold.

 

This should not be such a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would consider striking the last sentence, too.  Two reasons: First, the secretary and membership might balk at her possibly having to send out a second notice, making it harder for  you to get your bylaw amendment approved.  Second, you should try to get any such notices to her before she sends out her call to the meeting.  Why make it hard on people?   As a practical matter, when are the meeting notices usually sent out?  Change the 15 days to 20 or 30 days if you want to, but I think the requirement that the secretary send out a second notice if she has already sent out the call of the meeting is going to cause you problems.

Now that email is used for notices the window could be changed from 10 to 60 to 10 to 20. In fact for the last 2 years the notices did go out in the latter window. Then I could strike out the last sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say I disagree, but there is often a difference between what the secretary will do and what the secretary must do. Most secretaries are willing to do more than the rules say they must do. But the rules specify only what the secretary must do.

In answer to all 3 of the last posters, it is realistic to assume that none of the Officers know much about RR yet, so I think it is safest to just put in the extra section to avoid arguments between the requester and sec'y. (I think that the editors of RR-12 could make the subject clearer.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...