hswolfmaniac

21 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

You're welcome.

As a first step, start getting familiar with the index. If you don't find what you're looking for the first time, try to think of some synonyms or alternative ways of phrasing the topic.

As a second step, when the 12th edition comes out this fall, think about getting whatever electronic version they make available.

 

I have the 11th Edition CD, but I am still not able to find it on the first go-around.  I get a lot of results using using a single word, but using a combination of words does not provide what I'm looking for.  I'm going to keep trying, though.  I won't give up.  Thanks for your continued advise.

13 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

"To change the general rule fixing the time for meetings would require amendment of the bylaws."
RONR 11th ed., p. 575, lines 25-27.

So just voting to change the date is not adequate. Do your bylaws include the words "unless otherwise ordered by the [Unit, or Executive Committee, or President]"? That would give you some leeway, but "only for that single meeting on that particular occasion, and not for a period of time including several meetings." (p. 575, lines 24-25)

Thanks again.  It seems no matter how hard I try to find an answer in RONR on my own, I miss the right location for my answer.  You guys are fantastic!  Thanks again, and again, and again...

Well, we finally had a bylaws committee start and complete the review process.  It took us (I was part of the committee) about a month to finish which includes submitting the revisions to our Judge Advocate as well as our Executive Committee.  The membership was notified of the upcoming voting on the changes, I'm in the process of mailing the recommended changes to all the members in good standing, and all was going well -- until...  Two days ago, the Department Judge Advocate (DJA) and I were discussing questions I had on the bylaws.  During our discussion, it was discovered that since our "annual meeting was in June AFTER the Department Convention," we would not be eligible to have delegates at the convention.  As we continued our discussion,   we became leery of the bylaws we (the Post) had been working with.  He didn't have access to the copy of our original bylaws they had on file because the elected DJA had just passed away less than three weeks ago, and he didn't have access to his files yet.  I suggested contacting National in order to determine if they had a copy of our Post bylaws.  The DJA contacted National, and it turns out they did.  Unfortunately (or fortunately) it also turns out that the bylaws we've been using and working out of were never submitted to Department or National for review or ratification. Effective yesterday, we were back to using the original bylaws dated 14 February 2014.  Overall, it's not a bad thing because the revision we just completed incorporated a major portion of the original bylaws.  But now, we have a dilemma.

Our original bylaws state our meetings are to be held on the first Thursday of the month.  In September 2018, our meeting location at another veterans' organization was no longer conducive for us because the were asking for more money  than we could afford.  We had a vote to move to another location.  We found a location at a nearby county facility, but the first Thursday was not available to us.  We voted to have our meetings on the third Monday of the month, and it's been that way since October 2018.  As I mentioned earlier, the bylaws were never submitted by my predecessors to have them ratified.  Our DJA insists we cannot have our meetings on the third Monday because our 2014 bylaws state we must meet on the first Thursday, therefore we cannot have our elections nor submit our revised bylaws until May 2020 -- even though we voted to move our location and meeting time.

Is he correct?  Are we not able to have our meetings and elections on the third Monday of the month?  Are we not able to vote on our bylaws in April or May?  He suggested we should wait until May on the first Thursday.   (Here is a copy of the particular paragraph.)  "This Constitution may be amended by a two-thirds vote at a duly announced monthly General Membership meeting.  The Post Judge Advocate must, through committee, develop recommended changes and present them at the monthly meeting prior t the date that voting on the changes is scheduled to occur.  The Post membership shall be made aware that proposed changes are to be voted on at the next meeting at least fifteen days prior to that meeting. This Constitution may also be amended by a unanimous vote at the annual meeting without notice to the membership. Amendments to this constitution shall take effect immediately upon adoption unless otherwise specified by the voting body."

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you.

On ‎8‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 2:34 AM, hswolfmaniac said:

Well, at least one item I can take away from our discussion is that the commander can appoint a bylaws committee to start looking at the changes in preparation for the annual meeting. One thing is for sure, I will be recommending we change the bylaws restricting us to an annual meeting only requirement. Another opinion I can take away from this is the commander must ensure an Executive Committee exists in order to submit the changes to the membership. I'll be recommending a change to this also. Thank you to all of you for your inputs and guidance. I have truly appreciated your guidance. You guys have been tremendous. Thanks again.

Well, I tried at tonight's meeting , but to no avail. One particular member insisted that our Department Officers/parliamentarians know more about changing the bylaws than the Post officers on what can and cannot be done concerning the bylaws changes. Needless to say, he made a motion to "suspend" the June annual requirement, which passed. I just (internally) shook my head.

Benjamin Geiger, https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/profile/5488-benjamin-geiger/, once said back in April 2019 that "Ultimately parliamentary law can't protect an organization from itself." He has proven those words to me time and again. After today, I feel as if I should just keep my mouth shut and not say anything when something is being done wrong -- even if I know it's wrong -- because no one is listening to me. Not the VFW nor the AmVets. This is very frustrating. I'm really ready to give up trying to do the right thing.

38 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Ultimately, only your organization can interpret your bylaws. Giving us the whole file might (if we read all of it) help us to understand better, but it will not allow us to give answers beyond speculation and opinion in any event.

Well, at least one item I can take away from our discussion is that the commander can appoint a bylaws committee to start looking at the changes in preparation for the annual meeting. One thing is for sure, I will be recommending we change the bylaws restricting us to an annual meeting only requirement. Another opinion I can take away from this is the commander must ensure an Executive Committee exists in order to submit the changes to the membership. I'll be recommending a change to this also. Thank you to all of you for your inputs and guidance. I have truly appreciated your guidance. You guys have been tremendous. Thanks again.

11 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

No, there doesn’t.

”Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended—no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be—unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension, or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described on page 17, lines 22–25.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 263)

You say that your bylaws “state we are to review and make changes to our bylaws annually in June.” If this is the case, this process must be followed unless and until the bylaws are amended to change it, and they may only be amended by following the process as it exists in your current bylaws. I cannot say for certain since I have not seen the exact wording of this rule, but it is very possible that there is no way “to start the review process now, and then approve the changes shortly thereafter without waiting for an annual meeting.” If your bylaws say that they are amended at the annual meeting, then that’s what you have to do.

I have tried attaching the bylaws file, but it is too large to upload, and uploading each individual page won't help either because I'm only allowed one upload file per attachment. The only way to get it to any of you is by email. The only other way is to copy and paste all the pages, but I don't know how many characters I'm allowed to use in posting my comments.

36 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

There is no way to do what you wish. What you want to do is change the bylaw specifying how the bylaws are to be amended. To do that, you must follow the present rules for amending the bylaws. The procedure may not be suspended nor changed in any other manner.  

By the way, the standard threshold for amending a bylaw provision, unless your rules contain another, is notice AND a 2/3 vote, or a majority of the entire membership voting in the affirmative.

Your "catch-22" isn't actually a catch-22, just a delay, but in any case, I don't see anything that says the Commander reviews and approves bylaw amendments. It says the Executive Committee reviews them, but doesn't say that approval is needed, so far as I can see - it says it then presents them, not that it can veto them. If you don't have an Executive Committee (meaning your bylaws do not establish one) it seems to me that that requirement is waived. If, on the other hand, you mean that the Executive Committee simply hasn't been populated, your organization should get on that.

I've learned from reading the other discussions and RONR concerning suspension of rules that we're not able to suspend that rule, but I was hoping to be able to make a motion that allows us to start the review and complete the process without having to wait another year. We meet on a monthly basis -- not an annual basis. I believe when the bylaws were originally established, the charter members were following the National's bylaws' format without taking into consideration we meet monthly, and we shouldn't have to wait a year to adopt changes.

I kind of figured it was 2/3 from a past topic I had submitted. I learned, from having been a VFW adjutant, the membership must be notified of the impending review. I also learned the membership is the final approval authority.

Based on what you're saying, even if the Executive Committee (EC) was to be populated, we would still have to wait a year before we can do anything in approving those changes, which is not conducive to what must be done in completing our business. Submitting the changes to the EC, without our being able to approve the changes once the EC agrees the changes are valid, is an unnecessary "delay" (as you've correctly called it) at this time. There has to be  way for us to start the review process now, and then approve the changes shortly thereafter without waiting for an annual meeting.

Wow. I have been reading some of the discussions concerning bylaw changes. They are quite extensive. Here's my question. Our Post bylaws state we are to review and make changes to our bylaws annually in June. We have our elections in May, and our Department has its convention and elections in June. The Commander and some of our members agree that we need to change the annual review in our bylaws to something more manageable. I believe the bylaws should be reviewed as often as necessary or when numerous changes need to be made, and not wait for the annual requirement. There is too much going on in May and June to fulfill this annual requirement during this time frame. I suggested to our Commander to establish a bylaws committee in order to submit changes to our membership, and he agrees, but he also believes we cannot do anything until June, which is understandable, yet there are numerous outdated information and  changes that must take effect immediately. I understand that we cannot "suspend" the annual bylaws/rule, but something must be done. I am the Adjutant of our Post, and the bylaws must be reviewed as soon as possible. How may I move to change that rule? Am I able to make a motion via an amendment to something previously adopted in order to have the bylaws committee start their review, and then make the change permanent during the review process? I know I have to notify all of our members in order to approve this change, but if I don't notify the entire membership, then a 2/3 will be required of those present at our meetings (which averages between nine and fifteen members present (our membership is less than 80 and dwindling via unpaid members)). After all is said and done, how may I propose the change to that particular rule? Our Post is only 5-1/2 years old, and the bylaws have not been changed in over three years. I know the wording in the motion is very important. Here's the exact partial wording in the bylaws: "This Constitution may be amended by resolution at the annual meeting. Proposed amendments shall be submitted in writing to the Executive Committee for its review and presentation at the next annual meeting. Copies of proposed amendments shall be distributed by mail to all Post members at least 10 days prior to the date of the vote..." (The rest of this rule specifies the distribution to Department and National Headquarters.) (And here's the catch-22: if the current commander does not review the bylaws before his/her term of office ends, then the new incoming commander has to wait until the following annual meeting before anything can be done to the bylaws, and if this commander fails to review the bylaws before his term has ended, then the new commander must ensure it's done. The cycle continues. We also, that I am aware of, do not have an executive committee.)  Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

A motion was made and seconded by Post members to accept the minutes of a committee; however, the Commander bypassed any discussion and did not ask for a vote. He continued with the meeting, and the meeting was adjourned without a vote on the committee minutes. The main purpose of accepting the committee minutes is to ensure any actions or expenditures by the committee are allowed by the members. If there is no vote taken, is the motion defeated or no longer a valid motion? Can the motion be resubmitted at the next meeting in order to correct the mistake of the Commander? I have the CD version of RONR, but was unable to locate a proper answer to my question. Please advise. Thank you.

5 hours ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

Ultimately parliamentary law can't protect an organization from itself.

Wow. How very true. I never realized that concept. Thank you, Benjamin Geiger.

On ‎3‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 7:06 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Just to parse this response a bit: I agree that if the call has already gone out it is  too late to give valid previous notice because members can reasonably expect that notice would have been include with the call.

However, if this is a regular meeting without a separate call being sent out, then couldn't the organization voluntarily send out a valid notice, as long as it is sent a reasonable number of days before the meeting? Mr. Honemann's answer suggests that this would not be valid notice so I'm looking to clarify.

As I had mentioned earlier, the commander was confrontational and hostile towards me when I submitted my letter to the adjutant last month on 15 Mar 2019. Those hostilities continued into last night's, Monday, 08 April 2019, Post meeting. Well, I brought up my motion to Rescind, Amend Something Previously Adopted; however, in the end the debate was not about wrong or right, but it became one of personalities (and whose side are you on?).  Even though the commander eventually admitted he was wrong in adding the after-meeting comments, he still made it look as if I was the bad guy in all of this. He read something (I believe it may have been from Robert's Rules) concerning the difficulty in changing the minutes, and he was adamant in stating the minutes could not be changed until I told him in can be changed with a motion of rescinding or amending something that was previously adopted.  At one point he tried to silence me by telling me I was out of order and I could no longer speak, but I brought up a point of order where I told him he could not silence me. Our District commander was also in attendance, and he too spoke up against me knowing the commander was wrong. The motion was eventually voted on, with the commander saying the nays had the vote. I challenged the vote and called for a count, which the commander didn't particularly like, so the commander, after a quick discussion, had to call for a count: 5 yeas, 16 nays. Ironically, the voting was 5 yeas against 16 nays, which was the reverse of what we, RONR community quorum, had discussed. The membership paid no attention to my motion or the reasoning behind it. I didn't give previous notice for next month's meeting because I would need an additional 12-13 members to vote yea in order to have a unanimous vote of 17-18 versus the 16. I would need 33-34 members present in order to make it possible for a unanimous yea vote. That was too many for me to consider bringing up a previous notice for next month. Like I said, it was no longer a question of right or wrong, but who was on the commander's side. Apparently there are people in organizations that are not willing to listen to reasoning.

Thank you to everyone for your help.

1 minute ago, Gary Novosielski said:

...which can be reconsidered by one voting on the triumphant side.

  LOL. Good one, Mr. Novosielski. I will be doing just that on the inside without showing it on the outside. LOL. Thank you for your jest. I needed that. LOL.

3 minutes ago, hswolfmaniac said:

LOL. Absolutely. :-D   

3 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

The correct spelling is "yea", but I like the idea of yay votes. 😀

LOL. Absolutely. :-D

6 hours ago, hswolfmaniac said:

Sorry Mr. Brown. I meant unfinished business. Our agenda says (or used to say) old/unfinished business. I'm not quite sure what it has now because we (members) don't receive a copy of the agenda.

I was hoping to bring up the "Rescind; Amend Something Previously Adopted" motion during unfinished business because we're also having our elections next month at our regular meeting. I wanted to be able to discuss this before we have our elections. We had our first set of nominations this month (March) so we'll be completing our nominations and elections next month. The current commander has been nominated again for the next year with no one else nominated at this time. The nominations and elections will probably be brought up under unfinished business so I was hoping to have my say-so before we started the election process.

Present and voting, huh. Hmmm. There usually are members who, although not verbally abstaining, say nothing or do not vote. If I understand you correctly, if we have 20 members in attendance, and if a total of only 15 members vote (whether yay or nay), then 2/3 of those actually voting would be 10. So 10 of the voting would have had to cast a yay vote in order to pass or 10 nays in order to be defeated. In order to ensure accuracy I would have to call for a hand count. Am I correct in my deduction? Am I also correct in deducing, using the same 15 voting as a majority, if only 9 (or 8.5)  8 (or 7.5) vote yay and 7 (or 6.5) vote nay, then the motion passes, but if  9 (or 8.5) 8 (or 7.5) vote nay and 7 (or 6.5) are yay, "Guest Zev: "Anything less than 8 and the motion is defeated."" then the motion is defeated. (I think I have the correct math now. I was able to sleep for a little while.)

(I'm too tired to go on right now.)

 

 

5 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Not quite. Your math is off.

If 15 votes are cast and a 2/3 result is needed to adopt the motion, then 10 must vote aye and 5 vote nay in order to adopt the motion. Anything less than 10 and the motion is defeated. It may be easier to think in terms that twice as many need to vote aye than the nay votes.

If the motion is defeated and you give notice, then at the next meeting with the same 15 votes are cast, then 8 votes aye (anything above 7.5) and 7 votes nay constitute a majority and the motion is adopted. Anything less than 8 and the motion is defeated. In this case only more votes aye than vote nay is needed to adopt the motion.

Thank you, Zev. My mind was exhausted when was trying to do the math. I knew my math was off before going to sleep, but I could not figure out where my math calculations were off. :-( You just showed me where. Thank you. :-)

13 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

This motion should actually be made under new business.  First, there is really no such category in RONR  as "old business".  That is a common misconception.  The category is "unfinished business and general orders".  Unfinished business is a very particular type of business under RONR, namely, an item of business that was actually pending before the assembly at the time the previous meeting adjourned.  There is no such thing as "old business". 

Even though your motion to amend the minutes of a previous meeting concerns something that happened in the past, it is still new business, not "old business" or "unfinished business". The category "unfinished business and general orders" is taken up beginning on page 358.  You might pay particular attention to the footnote on page 358 regarding the use of the term "old business" which reads as follows: 

The expression "old business" should be avoided, since it may incorrectly suggest the further consideration of matters that have been finally disposed of. (Footnote, page 358).

I suppose you can do that if you want to in order to assess your chances of success, but the two thirds vote is based on the members present and voting, not the members present.  If they all vote, it is the same, but I suspect there might be some abstentions. The alternative of the vote of a majority of the entire membership is based on the total  membership, regardless of the number present or voting.

Edited to add:  It is possible that your organization has an agenda or order of business category called "old business".  If so, it is up to your organization to determine what items of business belong in that category.  Whenever that category appears, it is usually based on a misunderstanding of what is "unfinished business" and the erroneous assumption that any motions which have to do with anything that has been done in the past is "old business".  If your organization does in fact have that category, you have to figure out what it is for. It does not exist in RONR.

Sorry Mr. Brown. I meant unfinished business. Our agenda says (or used to say) old/unfinished business. I'm not quite sure what it has now because we (members) don't receive a copy of the agenda.

I was hoping to bring up the "Rescind; Amend Something Previously Adopted" motion during unfinished business because we're also having our elections next month at our regular meeting. I wanted to be able to discuss this before we have our elections. We had our first set of nominations this month (March) so we'll be completing our nominations and elections next month. The current commander has been nominated again for the next year with no one else nominated at this time. The nominations and elections will probably be brought up under unfinished business so I was hoping to have my say-so before we started the election process.

Present and voting, huh. Hmmm. There usually are members who, although not verbally abstaining, say nothing or do not vote. If I understand you correctly, if we have 20 members in attendance, and if a total of only 15 members vote (whether yay or nay), then 2/3 of those actually voting would be 10. So 10 of the voting would have had to cast a yay vote in order to pass or 10 nays in order to be defeated. In order to ensure accuracy I would have to call for a hand count. Am I correct in my deduction? Am I also correct in deducing, using the same 15 voting as a majority, if only 9 (or 8.5) vote yay and 7 (or 6.5) vote nay, then the motion passes, but if  9 (or 8.5) vote nay and 7 (or 6.5) are yay, then the motion is defeated.

(I'm too tired to go on right now.)

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

hswolfmaniac, I think Mr. Novosielski just summed things up very well.  Forget about the letter.  Forget about anyone mailing notice to the membership.  It looks  like that is not going to happen and we haven't seen anything indicating your notice must be mailed out.  Just do as Mr.Novosielski suggested in his post immediately above.  I believe others have made this same suggestion

Edited to add:  You can argue the merits of your motion at the meeting when you make it.  It is a debatable motion and you, as the mover, have the option of speaking to it first.  Be  prepared to make your case with that one "speech".  It may be the only thing you get to say.

Yes, others had made similar suggestions, but I was at a loss if I didn't submit the letter. Mr. Novosielski's suggestion encompasses what all of us have been discussing, but he has brought it down to a more workable level. But you are correct also in that I will have (possibly) just one chance to win them over on the first try.

I have appreciated your feedbacks. Thank you.

3 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

There is no point in having the letter read at the meeting.  If notice was sent, the letter is not needed, and if notice was not sent, the letter won't help.

But even if notice was not sent, you can still make the motion to: Amend the Previously Adopted  minutes of <date> by striking <whatever you want gone>.  If notice was not sent, the motion is still in order, it just requires a higher (2/3) threshold for adoption (or a majority of the entire membership).

If the motion passes with a 2/3 vote, You're done.  If it does not, then you immediately give verbal notice that you intend to renew the motion at the next meeting (the secretary should record this).  Since there is now previous notice, it will only require a normal majority at the next meeting. 

Edited to add:

Sorry for the redundant nature of this reply.  It was in the edit buffer while I was called away, and in the finite wisdom of the developers, it can't be deleted.  :-)

Wow, Mr. Novosielski. Mr. Brown is right about your last feedback. I will take your suggestion to heart. At our next meeting, I will make the motion under old business since the minutes have already been accepted as read. I will count the members present, then figure out the 2/3. If I'm lucky, then maybe I can get enough members to accept my reasoning for the motion. If not, then I will give them my verbal notice for the following month. Hopefully, they will accept my reasoning. I will have my letter in front of me in order to gather my thoughts while I have the floor. I will mention the commander's actions while I have the floor in hopes that they will see my desire to make things right in the past and future minutes. I will also suggest to the members that the commander appoint another adjutant if the current adjutant does not feel he is capable of "speedily" typing the minutes. (However, I will speak to the adjutant first so that he can realize the importance of his impartiality when typing the minutes.)

I will also ask for the commander's censure due to his hostilities and confrontational attitude concerning my letter.

Thank you.

5 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

No. You can make that motion without giving previous notice. The vote to adopt the motion, in that case is a 2/3 vote or a Majority of the Entire Membership (every member, whether they're at the meeting or not).

If previous notice has been given, then te vote to adopt is just a majority vote of those present and voting (or a Majority of the Entire Membership but that will also be a majority vote).

So it is to your advantage to give notice, as that lowers the threshold to adopt your motion.

If you can't, at this time, give previous notice - for the reasons in the last few posts - you can still move the motion at the next meeting. If it is not adopted, then at that same meeting you can give notice that you will move it again at the next meeting. The hope is that you can pass the lower threshold at the next meeting. Strategically, if you get anywhere between 1/2 and 2/3 in favour at the first meeting, you have a better chance of getting it adopted at the second meeting.

If the motion is not adopted at the first meeting, you need to be recognized by the chair and state that you are giving notice that you will move the same motion at the next meeting. That's outlined in the pages before 123-4 that were referenced earlier.

Atul, but I did give previous notice with my letter to the adjutant, but the commander has forbade and will not allow the adjutant to take action on my letter in notifying the entire membership. Even though the proper procedure is for the commander to allow the adjutant to notify the entire membership of over 400, the commander in his hostile confrontation towards me told me he will not contact any of the members on this matter. I'm serious. He was very hostile in his confrontation towards me. The adjutant wants to keep peace with the commander so I doubt he will proceed with the notification. Plus, I don't believe the adjutant is strong enough to tell the commander he is wrong. Some of the members that attend the meetings these past months have even turned against me because of the commander. I feel if something is not addressed properly at a meeting, then I stand and voice my disagreement. Most of the time the other members do not say anything even if I am right. I don't foresee a 2/3 majority without the notification. At least with the notification, I have a better chance of a majority vote.

1 minute ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

You can make your motion to amend or rescind (if you have said exactly what this is I'm afraid that I missed it), and if it is not adopted you can give notice that you will make the same motion again at your next regular meeting.

I'm confused on "(if you have said exactly what this is I'm afraid that I missed it)".

If I understand all my feedbacks (condensed version): (1) in order to move for a "rescind; amend something previously adopted," a previous notice must be submitted to the adjutant/secretary; (2) if call to a meeting has not been sent, then the adjutant can include the previous notice in the call; (3) if the organization does not require a call by the adjutant, then the member can move for a rescind/amend at the next regular meeting; (4) if the motion is not adopted, then the member can give notice that the motion will make the same motion at the next regular meeting. Is that basically it in a nutshell?

My questions now are: can I ask the adjutant to read the letter I gave him to the membership before or after I make my motion? Or shall I just move for correction?; shall I read it if my motion is not adopted and with my intentions to give notice again at our next regular meeting? A lot of questions to ask with this last feedback.

52 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If your secretary doesn't send out notices of your regular monthly meetings (RONR says that he should unless you have some rule providing otherwise), then I'm afraid that the only way for you to give previous notice is to do so at a meeting.

Well, that's not good. :-( The only mention in our bylaws (National/Post) concerning meetings is for a special meeting.

So if my only option to give previous notice is at our next meeting, then that means the subject cannot be discussed at our next meeting. I will have to wait an additional month before I am able to discuss the meeting minutes for February. Is that correct? If that is the case, am I able to request the adjutant read my previous notice letter to the membership at our next meeting?

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Thanks, Atul.  One minor nit-picky correction:  I think perhaps you intended to say, "In such a case, the member desiring to GIVE the notice writes to the secretary. . . .",  rather than the member desiring to GET the notice writes to the secretary. . . ." 

 

I will mention something here that has bothered me from the beginning of this thread.  If this is a regular meeting and no call of the meeting is sent out by the secretary or if the call of the meeting has already been sent out, I question whether the secretary must send another notice at the request of the member and at the expense of the society.  The quoted language from the bottom of page 123 and top of 124 indicates to me that the secretary is not required to send the notice.... at least not at the organization's expense.... in such a case.   I'm not even convinced that the secretary must do it if the member offers to pay the expense.  Could the member even mail the notice himself in that situation?  Perhaps if he does it a "reasonable period of time in advance of the meeting"?  I am interested in what the authorship team and other regular contributors to the forum have to say about that issue.

For reference, here again is the pertinent language from pages 123-124 of RONR:

"Instead of being given at a meeting, a notice can also be sent to every member with the call of the meeting at which [page 124] the matter is to come up for action, except where the rules of the organization provide otherwise. In such a case, the member desiring to give the notice writes to the secretary alone, requesting that the notice be sent with the call of the next meeting; and the secretary should then do this at the expense of the organization."  (Emphasis added)

Of course, a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted does not REQUIRE previous notice... previous notice just lowers the vote requirement.  The motion can still be made and considered without notice at the meeting, but subject to the higher vote threshold.

Richard, we have a regular monthly meeting unless it is cancelled for a specific reason (i.e. a hurricane in our specific area). There is no "call" sent out by the adjutant for our meetings other than announcing at the end of each of our meetings when our next meeting will be.

The higher vote threshold was one reason I had submitted my Previous Notice to Rescind; Amend Something Previously Adopted from Meeting Minutes. Based on the feedback I have received thus far, submitting my previous notice was my better option.

Your suggestion of "Could the member even mail the notice himself in that situation?  Perhaps if he does it a "reasonable period of time in advance of the meeting"? " is an interesting one except that a member will not have access to the membership roster since the member is not required to receive a roster nor is the member authorized to have one for privacy reasons.

8 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

You won't find that specific rule in RONR because RONR expects all members to follow the rules that are written in the book, such as the one below.

Mr. Brown answered this one. 

Which reads:

"Instead of being given at a meeting, a notice can also be sent to every member with the call of the meeting at which the matter is to come up for action, except where the rules of the organization provide otherwise. In such a case, the member desiring to give get the notice writes to the secretary alone, requesting that the notice be sent with the call of the next meeting, and the secretary should then do this at the expense of the organization." (Emphasis added)

Our meetings are held monthly, and at the end of each meeting, the commander announces the date and time of our next meeting. This has been included in the agenda for several years now. Our newsletter, which is only mailed to those who donate for the cost of the stamps, also announces when we our next meeting is. When I turned in the letter, I had handed it directly to our adjutant (secretary). It was he who gave the letter to our commander for approval, but I had previously advised the adj after he finished reading the letter that approval was not required.

Our bylaws state what day and time of the month our meetings are held, but not everyone has a copy of our bylaws (that I am aware of).

6 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Why not purchase a copy of Robert's Rules Of Order Newly Revised In Brief for your Commander and see if this helps. Many times people that do not have an understanding of proper parliamentary procedure and have been doing things a certain way for many years think that comments or ideas that they should do differently is a form of challenge to their authority. Perhaps a friendly gesture may go a long way into demonstrating that you and he are on the same side and not adversaries. Also, see if you can get the Adjutant/Secretary to do his job of typing the minutes and perhaps the Commander would not be so protective of the whole thing.

The Post Adjutant (Adj) told me yesterday morning, Friday, 15 Mar 2019, he had purchased a copy of RONR, but I'm too tired now to remember if he bought it for himself or the Post. And here's a kicker. Our Post Commander just happens to be the District Adjutant, but I have been to (just) a few District meetings where he has not done the minutes correctly there either. I have not been to a District meeting for several months now so I don't know if the (Post Commander)/District Adjutant continues to perform the minutes incorrectly. Back to the RONR, the Post is authorized to purchase a copy of the RONR for the office so I will suggest to the Post Adj to purchase one to keep handy in the office. What I have to find next in the RONR is the rule where it states the Commander (Chair) is not allowed to prevent anyone from submitting a letter on the Rescind; Amend Something Previously Adopted process, and that the Commander (Chair) must allow the process to proceed once the letter/notice has been received by the Post/organization.