Guest Manda Posted May 25, 2011 at 09:04 PM Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 at 09:04 PM Okay, we have decided that we want to try to rescind a motion that may have been rashly made 2 years ago. A few weeks ago via e-mail a notice was sent. It was decided that notice had to be made via mailing and all members should be contacted by the secretary. Is that correct? The issue was dropped until further reseach. And also if notice is made then the vote should be majority and not 2/3 of vote, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted May 25, 2011 at 09:10 PM Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 at 09:10 PM Previous notice must be given either at the immediately previous meeting or in the call of the meeting (RONR pp. 116-118) and it only takes a majority vote if previous notice is given (RONR pp. 295-296). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manda Posted May 31, 2011 at 08:39 PM Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 at 08:39 PM Previous notice must be given either at the immediately previous meeting or in the call of the meeting (RONR pp. 116-118) and it only takes a majority vote if previous notice is given (RONR pp. 295-296).So if it was announced in the last meeting then, we do not have to give notice in the form of a letter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted May 31, 2011 at 08:45 PM Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 at 08:45 PM So if it was announced in the last meeting then, we do not have to give notice in the form of a letter?Correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted May 31, 2011 at 09:01 PM Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 at 09:01 PM So if it was announced in the last meeting then, we do not have to give notice in the form of a letter?Correct.However, a point worth considering is that, following this approach to notice, no member who was not at the meeting will know about this upcoming motion to Rescind unless the grape-vine takes over. This may be good or bad, as the vote of the number of members absent at the upcoming meeting might affect the outcome of the vote. Those who were absent may be absent again, and it might be desirable to have them present and voting (as well as debating). Your call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted May 31, 2011 at 09:35 PM Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 at 09:35 PM Correct.If it is practical to do so (i.e., the interval between the meetings is sufficient to make a mailing possible), the secretary will mail the notice previously given orally and entered on the minutes to all the members with the call of the meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted June 1, 2011 at 04:27 AM Report Share Posted June 1, 2011 at 04:27 AM If it is practical to do so (i.e., the interval between the meetings is sufficient to make a mailing possible), the secretary will mail the notice previously given orally and entered on the minutes to all the members with the call of the meeting.Rob, I don't think I've ever heard this before. Where's it say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted June 1, 2011 at 12:11 PM Report Share Posted June 1, 2011 at 12:11 PM Rob, I don't think I've ever heard this before. Where's it say?The section on page 116 does seem initially to give priority to the written notice-with-the-call format, and certainly it's required if the next meeting is not within a quarterly time interval, but offers the previous meeting approach as an alternative. Interestingly, it does seem to read that if the next meeting will be within a quarterly time interval, then notice must (not merely can) be given at the previous meeting. I think it would be best, if possible, to include it with the call to make sure all members, not just those present at the previous meeting, are aware of the pending motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 1, 2011 at 12:18 PM Report Share Posted June 1, 2011 at 12:18 PM Interestingly, it does seem to read that if the next meeting will be within a quarterly time interval, then notice must (not merely can) be given at the previous meeting. A careful reading of what is said on pages 116-118 will lead to no such conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted June 1, 2011 at 12:23 PM Report Share Posted June 1, 2011 at 12:23 PM The section on page 116 does seem ... Interestingly, it does seem to read that if the next meeting will be within a quarterly time interval, then notice must (not merely can) be given at the previous meeting. Hmm, I read the "notice at previous meeting" rule as a "permissible alternative" to the "notice in the call" rule, not a mandate.Doing both, as noted, is probably best if feasible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted June 1, 2011 at 12:50 PM Report Share Posted June 1, 2011 at 12:50 PM Hmm, I read the "notice at previous meeting" rule as a "permissible alternative" to the "notice in the call" rule, not a mandate.Doing both, as noted, is probably best if feasible.I'll need to back peddle on this a little, having just re-read it for nth time and now understanding. In the case of monthly meetings, you can't give notice at the January meeting of a motion to be brought forth at the March meeting. January notice = February motion, February notice = March motion, etc. A well-known point that evaded my ken for a brief moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.