Sean Hunt Posted March 12, 2012 at 07:17 PM Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 at 07:17 PM If a committee reports a motion unamended, and the adoption of that motion requires notice, then does the committee need to provide notice that it will be reporting the motion in order for the motion to be considered (assuming it is reporting at a different meeting)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted March 12, 2012 at 08:30 PM Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 at 08:30 PM If a committee reports a motion unamended, and the adoption of that motion requires notice, then does the committee need to provide notice that it will be reporting the motion in order for the motion to be considered (assuming it is reporting at a different meeting)?You ought to post the interesting questions in the "Advanced Discussion" forum. How did the motion get into the committee in the first place? And what instructions were given as to the time at which the committee should report? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted March 12, 2012 at 11:48 PM Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 at 11:48 PM The motion could have originated with the committee, especially if it was a standing committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 13, 2012 at 07:20 PM Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 at 07:20 PM If a committee reports a motion unamended, and the adoption of that motion requires notice, then does the committee need to provide notice that it will be reporting the motion in order for the motion to be considered (assuming it is reporting at a different meeting)?If I understand the facts correctly, a motion requiring previous notice for its adoption (which had been given) was properly referred to a committee. If so, I think the answer to your question is no, no further notice is required. I think that this answer remains the same even if the committee recommends adoption of an amendment, unless the committee recommends adoption of an amendment going beyond the scope of the notice previously given.I would post this response except for the fact that I'm waiting to hear what Shmuel has to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted March 13, 2012 at 11:17 PM Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 at 11:17 PM If I understand the facts correctly, a motion requiring previous notice for its adoption (which had been given) was properly referred to a committee. If so, I think the answer to your question is no, no further notice is required. I think that this answer remains the same even if the committee recommends adoption of an amendment, unless the committee recommends adoption of an amendment going beyond the scope of the notice previously given.I would post this response except for the fact that I'm waiting to hear what Shmuel has to say. And I was waiting for Sean Hunt to tell me what this is all about. If this was in fact a main motion that was introduced after proper notice, and then referred to a committee while pending, then I agree no further notice is necessary when the committee reports the same motion back.But if the committee was charged to consider a particular motion by means of a main motion, then the assembly must receive some sort of further notice as to when, and possibly what, the committee is reporting, as stated in RONR (11th ed.), p. 581, lines 24-34 in the case of a revision to the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 14, 2012 at 12:38 AM Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 at 12:38 AM And I was waiting for Sean Hunt to tell me what this is all about. If this was in fact a main motion that was introduced after proper notice, and then referred to a committee while pending, then I agree no further notice is necessary when the committee reports the same motion back.But if the committee was charged to consider a particular motion by means of a main motion, then the assembly must receive some sort of further notice as to when, and possibly what, the committee is reporting, as stated in RONR (11th ed.), p. 581, lines 24-34 in the case of a revision to the bylaws.Thank you, Shmuel.The first part of this response says, in a more precise and much clearer fashion, what I tried to say in the response that I posted. I figured that, with a little coaxing, I could count on you to come along and clean it up for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted March 14, 2012 at 02:08 PM Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 at 02:08 PM Thank you, that answers my question. I suppose I thought "unamended" was clearer than it was---I did mean to say that the committee was referred a motion which it later reported back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted March 14, 2012 at 02:35 PM Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 at 02:35 PM If I understand the facts correctly, a motion requiring previous notice for its adoption (which had been given) was properly referred to a committee. If so, I think the answer to your question is no, no further notice is required. I think that this answer remains the same even if the committee recommends adoption of an amendment, unless the committee recommends adoption of an amendment going beyond the scope of the notice previously given....Is this true even if the time for the committee to report back was not specified in any way? Suppose the committee is told to do its work on the referred motion, and to report back when ready. If the motion is complex the committee might be sitting on it (hopefully, working on it) for a number of months. The parent assembly has to be prepared to immediately deal with the motion, with no further notice required, at any of the parent assembly's future meetings during those months? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 14, 2012 at 02:38 PM Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 at 02:38 PM Is this true even if the time for the committee to report back was not specified in any way? Suppose the committee is told to do its work on the referred motion, and to report back when ready. If the motion is complex the committee might be sitting on it (hopefully, working on it) for a number of months. The parent assembly has to be prepared to immediately deal with the motion, with no further notice required, at any of the parent assembly's future meetings during those months?Why do they have to immediately deal with it? By "deal with it" do you mean they have to consider it right then and there? And if the committee is taking too long, can't the assembly do something about that too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 14, 2012 at 02:42 PM Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 at 02:42 PM Thank you, that answers my question. I suppose I thought "unamended" was clearer than it was---I did mean to say that the committee was referred a motion which it later reported back.Well, pay particular attention to all of Shmuel's response. It is insufficient simply to note that the motion was referred to the committee; more details concerning the referral are required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted March 14, 2012 at 02:53 PM Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 at 02:53 PM Why do they have to immediately deal with it? By "deal with it" do you mean they have to consider it right then and there? And if the committee is taking too long, can't the assembly do something about that too?My question was poorly phrased. What I mean is -- if no further notice is required, the assembly can go ahead and vote on the motion immediately when the committee reports, even if months have gone by, and even if a lot of members interested in the motion are not present at the meeting. Is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 14, 2012 at 02:57 PM Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 at 02:57 PM My question was poorly phrased. What I mean is -- if no further notice is required, the assembly can go ahead and vote on the motion immediately when the committee reports, even if months have gone by, and even if a lot of members interested in the motion are not present at the meeting. Is that correct?Correct. As Dan noted in another thread, subsidiary motions are available should they not wish to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted March 15, 2012 at 05:50 PM Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 at 05:50 PM My question was poorly phrased. What I mean is -- if no further notice is required, the assembly can go ahead and vote on the motion immediately when the committee reports, even if months have gone by, and even if a lot of members interested in the motion are not present at the meeting. Is that correct?I suspect it may add clarity to point out that p. 121 defines notice as announcement that the motion will be "INTRODUCED." The reporting of a recommendation in regards to a motion that has been referred to a committee by the subsidiary motion to commit does not INTRODUCE the motion, as it has already been introduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.