Trina Posted February 19, 2012 at 03:01 PM Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 at 03:01 PM In the 10th edition (p. 577) there was a requirement that 'if required to be in writing, the notice should be signed by two members, who thus serve as mover and seconder.'I noticed a few days ago that this sentence no longer appears in the 11th. Does anyone have any comments or insights as to the reason for this change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 19, 2012 at 07:17 PM Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 at 07:17 PM In the 10th edition (p. 577) there was a requirement that 'if required to be in writing, the notice should be signed by two members, who thus serve as mover and seconder.'I noticed a few days ago that this sentence no longer appears in the 11th. Does anyone have any comments or insights as to the reason for this change?To coincide with #124 on the list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 19, 2012 at 07:36 PM Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 at 07:36 PM To coincide with #124 on the list? Well yes, but that doesn't give any hint as to why the change was made.Maybe to be more consistent with other types of notice requirements (as for the motion to rescind, or amend something previously adopted); particularly the requirement stated on p. 124 ll. 2-6 regarding written notice...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted February 19, 2012 at 07:47 PM Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 at 07:47 PM In the 10th edition (p. 577) there was a requirement that 'if required to be in writing, the notice should be signed by two members, who thus serve as mover and seconder.'I noticed a few days ago that this sentence no longer appears in the 11th. Does anyone have any comments or insights as to the reason for this change?A better question might be why was that language in the 10th Edition in the first place. Giving notice is not the same as making the motion so the idea that a second would be required seems out of place (or at least premature). In fact, giving notice doesn't even guarantee that the motion will be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 20, 2012 at 12:21 PM Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 at 12:21 PM A better question might be why was that language in the 10th Edition in the first place. Giving notice is not the same as making the motion so the idea that a second would be required seems out of place (or at least premature). In fact, giving notice doesn't even guarantee that the motion will be made.The language to which you refer was in the 10th Edition because it was in the 9th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 20, 2012 at 11:31 PM Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 at 11:31 PM Maybe to be more consistent with other types of notice requirements (as for the motion to rescind, or amend something previously adopted); particularly the requirement stated on p. 124 ll. 2-6 regarding written notice...?Makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.