Reading a resolution/revision

[J. J.]

Some document, a bylaw revision or very long and complex resolution, is to come before the assembly. Copies were sent to all members prior to its introduction and any member present can have a written copy at the meeting (if they forgot to bring one with them). It will take an hour to read the document in full.

Can the assembly, by unanimous consent, forgo the the actual reading? If so, what would be the page citation?

[Dan Honemann]

Can the assembly, by unanimous consent, forgo the the actual reading?

Yes, since the paper need be read only if a member insists upon it (p. 287, l. 10-14).

[J. J.]

Yes, since the paper need be read only if a member insists upon it (p. 287, l. 10-14).

I thought that citation was weak, but it was my gut reaction too.

I was looking at p. 253, l. 8-10.

I'll go a step further, this is a revision and the bylaws state that the revision "shall be read." I would take it that p. 17, l. 22-4 would also apply?

[George Mervosh]

Skipping over your bylaw question, J. J., I think during seriatim consideration a member can, at anytime, demand the section that is immediately pending be read. I wouldn't mess around with a global waiver from the get-go, because I think it can be unwaived (?) at any time.

[Dan Honemann]

I'll go a step further, this is a revision and the bylaws state that the revision "shall be read." I would take it that p. 17, l. 22-4 would also apply?

I don't know, I haven't read these bylaws (and don't intend to). For example, isn't it obviously essential to know when it is that the bylaws say that any proposed revision "shall be read"?

[J. J.]

I don't know, I haven't read these bylaws (and don't intend to). For example, isn't it obviously essential to know when it is that the bylaws say that any proposed revision "shall be read"?

I think it refers to notice and say "be made in writing and read at the previous annual meeting." It's more of an academic question at this point.

[Dan Honemann]

I think it refers to notice and say "be made in writing and read at the previous annual meeting." It's more of an academic question at this point.

Well, that sounds like a previous notice requirement to me (and to you too, I bet ), which means it cannot be suspended.

[J. J.]

Well, that sounds like a previous notice requirement to me (and to you too, I bet ), which means it cannot be suspended.

The notice would be, but the detail, that it must be "read," doesn't. If the bylaws said, "the text of the bylaw must be submitted on red paper at the previous annual meeting," I would say that, without objection, it could be submitted in writing on white paper.

Whether the revision is actually read aloud or not, provided that there was a chance for any member to demand that it be read, wouldn't effect the validity of the notice. The same thing would apply to "red." Whether or not someone heard it read aloud in a meeting wouldn't affect absentee rights.

[Dan Honemann]

The notice would be, but the detail, that it must be "read," doesn't. If the bylaws said, "the text of the bylaw must be submitted on red paper at the previous annual meeting," I would say that, without objection, it could be submitted in writing on white paper.

Whether the revision is actually read aloud or not, provided that there was a chance for any member to demand that it be read, wouldn't effect the validity of the notice. The same thing would apply to "red." Whether or not someone heard it read aloud in a meeting wouldn't affect absentee rights.

I disagree.

[hmtcastle]

Whether the revision is actually read aloud or not, provided that there was a chance for any member to demand that it be read, wouldn't effect the validity of the notice. The same thing would apply to "red." Whether or not someone heard it read aloud in a meeting wouldn't affect absentee rights.

Just as RONR places a premium on being physically present, it also places a premium on oral reading, and I think the principle is the same. There's a lot to be, well, said, for having been there and having heard what was said.

The common denominator is the shared experience: "We were there at the same time and heard the same thing."

[J. J.]

I disagree.

It certainly would not affect absentee rights, because only the members present could hear the reading or could see the color of the paper.

[J. J.]

Just as RONR places a premium on being physically present, it also places a premium on oral reading, and I think the principle is the same. There's a lot to be, well, said, for having been there and having heard what was said.

The common denominator is the shared experience: "We were there at the same time and heard the same thing."

There isn't, in a nonbylaw context, an absolute requirement to be heard, if everyone present says that they are happy to adopt it without being read.

[George Mervosh]

I can't see how reading out loud in a meeting is anything other than a procedural rule, since notice serves only to protect absentees, but that's why we don't mess around with this bylaw stuff here

[J. J.]

I can't see how reading out loud in a meeting is anything other than a procedural rule, since notice serves only to protect absentees, but that's why we don't mess around with this bylaw stuff here

It is notice but, bizarrely, it doesn't protect absentees. Unless the meeting was broadcast, an absentee could never hear the motion being read. I'll even concede that if the meeting was broadcast, it might.

As it is notice, it would have to be in the minutes as well. I would argue that the rules could not be suspended to prevent that on absentee rights grounds.

I saw this yesterday in the bylaws, and the society does plan to read it. It prompted that bizarre question.

(And for the record, I did not write those bylaws.)

[Dan Honemann]

It is notice but, bizarrely, it doesn't protect absentees. Unless the meeting was broadcast, an absentee could never hear the motion being read. I'll even concede that if the meeting was broadcast, it might.

As it is notice, it would have to be in the minutes as well. I would argue that the rules could not be suspended to prevent that on absentee rights grounds.

I saw this yesterday in the bylaws, and the society does plan to read it. It prompted that bizarre question.

(And for the record, I did not write those bylaws.)

I really don't want to pursue this any further, but I should at least point out that the absentees to be protected are those members who are absent from the meeting at which the proposed bylaw amendment is to be adopted, not those who are absent from the meeting at which previous notice by reading was supposed to have been given (although some may have been absent from both).