Kim Goldsworthy

"Same meeting"? Notice is still good, for that same meeting.

I don't know what you would need, other than a room to meet. The secretary mails the notices. What else is there? -- Notice is mailed, and a room is rented. I would think you would ask the owners of the meeting hall (the hotel?) what details are left to be negotiated.

I find this interesting. • The assembly can give itself oral notice. No standing and getting the attention of the chair. No interrupting the chair. No mailed notice. No sending in letters to secretaries. This is a development I did not see coming, per the existing language of page 121 & 122. You don't even have to call it a "notice". -- Just adopt a motion, and, "wham!", ". . . It's as simple as that . . .". *** Q. If all it takes for "the assembly is to give itself notice" is to adopt a motion, then why can't this adoption thing carry over to non-revision situations? Is the act of adopting a motion the act of giving notice, or potentially so, in other cases?

It is a popular "myth" that • "One may not end one's debate time with a motion that would close debate." Robert's Rules of Order says the opposite. -- It is expressly allowed.

>> I suggest that it is not [appropriate], as it implies everyone voted in favour of the motion. No. The phrase "passed unanimously" does not mean what you assert it means (viz., that everyone [physically inside the meeting room] voted in favor of the motion). The term "unanimous" in Robert's Rules of Order does not refer to non-voting members (or non-voting delegates). Under Robert's Rules of Order, abstentions are never accounted for, under the default parliamentary rules of voting. When Robert's Rules of Order uses the phrase "unanimous consent" or "unanimous vote", the implication is, "abstentions do not count". The phrase does imply, "No votes were cast in opposition [to the prevailing side]." *** I would suggest that you accept that the adjective "unanimous," in the parliamentary sense, does not refer to "every physical human being who could have voted, but who failed to cast a vote." I suggest that you take the adjective to automatically imply, "Abstentions not being a factor." *** Think of it this way. • A "unanimous vote" refers to votes. • A "unanimous vote" does not refer to non-votes, nor to the collective pool of potential voters. ***

Okay. Compare and contrast the key actions. *** When page 581 says (a.) ". . .the appointing action all the notice required . . ." but when DHH says (b.) "nothing on page 581 [...] indicates that the act of creating a bylaws committee in and of itself constitutes the act of giving notice of anything at all . . ." then we have two sentences, where one says (a.) "[appointing a committee] *IS* all the notice required" vs. (b.) "[creating a committee] is *NOT* [all the notice required.]" *** The difference between the two sentences is the use of two gerunds: (a.) appointing (b.) creating Review the difference, in context: • Page 581 uses the act of appointing as they key action. • DHH asserts that the thing which is NOT a factor is the act of creating. *** If that is the key difference, then we are left with this conclusion: • "It is not enough (1.) to create the committee, nor (2.) to charge, the committee, nor (3.) to fix a reporting deadline to the committee." • "It is the action of (4.) to appoint the committee which is "all the [previous] notice required." *** Agree? • To appoint a special committee [on subject X], is "all the previous notice required."

From Parliamentary Law, and from the Eleventh Edition of RONR, it appears that previous notice can be given using an incidental main motion. Like, "That a bylaws committee be created, charged with drafting a revision of the bylaws, to report out at the <month> meeting."

I found an excerpt in Parliamentary Law (1923) which is probably the text from which the current edition lifted the idea. ***

If (a.) "the act of creating a bylaws committee" is NOT itself (b.) "the act of giving notice", then the question arises: Q. When page 581 is exercised by an organization, then how do the actions invoking page 581 satisfy the requirement of page 121 (previous notice)? -- Page 581 is trying to do something which includes (a.) no oral announcement, and (b.) no written announcement. Where is the notice?

As always: • If a law is in place which addresses the issue or the conflict, then what Robert's Rules of Order has to say on that same subject becomes moot. • If the bylaws are silent, but a law is in place which addresses the issue or the conflict, then what Robert's Rules of Order has to say on that same subject becomes moot. • If Robert's Rules of Order applies, i.e., there is no superior rule in place (like a BYLAW, or like a LAW) to gainsay the parliamentary authority, then the board is the inferior body to the superior general membership.

Page 581 is interesting. Page 581 implies that page 121 (where previous notice is described) is incomplete. Page 121 should say that there are three ways of giving previous notice. Not just the two given: (a.) via an oral announcement. (b.) via the mailed call-to-meeting. The act of creating a bylaw revision committee is itself the act of giving notice, per page 581. *** If page 581 holds in general, then the act of creating a committee and giving it a fixed reporting date for any specific charge (like, to host a St. Patrick's Day party), is tantamount to: "giving notice that, when the committee reports out, a motion addressing that subject ('That we host a St. Patrick's Day party') will (likely) be introduced. -- And may be adopted, in that very meeting." (See clip of page 121 for the oral method, and the written method.)

Assume: Bylaws require only previous notice of amendment, without limitation of the period within which it must be acted upon (i.e., ordinary Robertian notice; no readings; no delays). Assume: In January, the general membership creates a Bylaw Committee. The charge of the Bylaws Committee is to create a full revision of the bylaws. The general membership fixes a "rush" deadline for the final report of the Bylaws Committee -- namely, the next regular meeting (February). Question: May the general membership act upon (adopt!) the revision in the February meeting (i.e., the same meeting as the final report of the Bylaws Committee)?

That cannot be the case. That interpretation leads to an absurd result. *** Q. If, in January, a motion is moved and seconded (To Amend Something Previously Adopted) which targets an ordinary act of the society, but is postponed to to the next regular meeting (February), and, is again postponed to the next regular meeting (March), then what can a member do to lower the vote threshold of the postponed motion to a majority vote? *** Under your interpretation, there is no way to do so. And that is absurd. Since it is absurd, then that cannot be an accurate interpretation of the rule. There must be a rational interpretation which allows for a majority vote of a multiple-time postponed motion. (Note that the motion will have appeared in two sets of minutes, come the March meeting.)

It would appear that sometimes, no notice is necessary to elect officers. See page 444. But then see page 468. Note that page 444 makes no mention of notice. Thus, it would appear as if page 444 contradicts page 468, which says that notice "must always be given". Q. What is the solution to this apparent contradiction?

No. That practice [to announce election results outside of a quorum-satisfied meeting] is not common. But it does happen. That practice is contrary to Robert's Rules of Order. -- That practice does not allow for challenges, points of order, motions to discard that round of balloting, etc., whatever irregularity occurred, and which needs correction. *** For example: What would you do if voter fraud was clearly involved? (Extreme hypothetical example: How can there be 101 ballots stuffed in a ballot box, where a club only has 33 members?)

No. Not within anything in Robert's Rules of Order. Where customized rules are involved, they will take priority over the default disciplinary rules within one's parliamentary authority. *** See if your rules contain an appeal process of some kind. (There isn't any within Robert's Rules of Order.)

There is no such thing as "active member" inside the 700+ pages of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. So, no one here can tell you what an "active member" is, within your organization. That is a petard your own organization has hoisted on itself. (A line from Shakespeare, modified for you.) *** If your bylaws define "member", then you cannot create lesser-level rules (like "policies") which imply, "The bylaws lie. There are lots more qualifications before one can be classified as a member." *** >>The bylaws do define an active member. So! There you go! You don't need an Intake! You already know, per your bylaws, who is "active". No extra hoops and hurdles.

See FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. #4 and #6.

Induction is a ceremony, according to Robert's Rules of Order. If your bylaws provide a series of steps for membership, then that is that. If a person misses his own induction, but fulfills all the requirements which define "membership", then that person is a member who is not inducted. -- That's all. *** Note that your "ceremony" is a 60-day window. Did you think that the new members cannot exercise their rights of membership prior to the induction ceremony?

Yes. An ordinary motion (To Amend Something Previously Adopted, that is) can change a mission statement which is not embedded in the bylaws. If your bylaws hold an embedded mission statement, then, of course, you must follow the proper method of amendment for your bylaws. In fact, if your mission statement is indeed embedded in your bylaws, you'd be wasting a step by adopting an ordinary motion, first. But, wait! Q. Are you referring to two distinct bodies? -- Like, (a.) a general membership, plus (b.) an executive board? Then, indeed, it may be the case, for you, that two separate actions would be necessary.

Here is one idea: • As secretary, you keep the minutes in conformance with Robert's Rules of Order. • Create the position of "scribe" or "scrivener" and assign this pool fool the task of taking down the debate and commentary. *** • Have the organization approve minutes, as normal. • Have no approval of the en-scribed notes, but just allow whoever want to, to add or correct the text. -- That gives everyone 100% input, and no one is allowed to scratch out another person's text. -- As that would suppressive editing, wouldn't it?

You seems to think that attendance at a meeting is like the Frank Sinatra song, "All or Nothing at All". There is no rule in Robert's Rules which cares "how much" meeting one attends. There is nothing in Robert's Rules which implies that "attendance of some fraction N" implies "attendance of the entire meeting." One could indeed attend a meeting for 30 seconds. -- Perhaps 1/120th of the whole meeting.-- Less than one percent of the whole meeting. *** If your organization needs to know such data, then your organization will have to customize the rule and create the criteria.

Reply to #1: An order of business is a fixed set of CLASSES of business. One's order of business never (well, hardly ever) changes, from meeting to meeting, from year to year. An agenda is a specific set of business, EACH ITEM OF WHICH falls under the appropriate CLASS OF BUSINESS of one's order of business. Thus, under your fixed "order of business", you will have, in your next regular meeting, ". . . reports from officers . . .". -- Under this class, you may list "Henry, finance committee; Samantha, St. Patrick's Day Parade committee; Boswell, clubhouse repair committee." Your agenda will change with every meeting. Your order of business will rarely, if ever, change. *** Reply to #2: Your order of business is fixed, per your parliamentary authority. Your organization is free to amend the order of business and customize its order, or customized a unique class of business. No secretary, no president, gets to mess with the order of business. -- The order of business is fixed by rule. One's agenda must be drafted by someone. Usually this falls to the president or to the secretary, or to both. Someone ought to hold a memorandum of people who are ready to report. In theory, you don't need an agenda. You would just call off the classes of business, and dynamically prompt the members for appropriate business. (e.g., "We are now doing committee reports. Are there any committee chairmen ready to report?") ***

Just for the sake of readers who are NOT in a "town meeting" . . . Under the default parliamentary rules of Robert's Rules of Order, the answer is _________: • YES, the board may meet at any moment in executive session. • NO, this person does not have the right to video tape the deliberations of the meeting, without permission of the body which is meeting.

See the rules for MINUTES in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised ("RONR") [11th edition, 2011]. You won't find a rule saying: ". . . names of the nominators are to be included." Just the opposite, the minutes are to include the names of those who moved important main motions. -- And nominations are not main motions. Bottom line: There no Robertian justification for including the names of nominators. *** You are free to violate the rule, and include such names. But that would be your own unwritten custom/tradition.