Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Voting


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

I need to conduct a vote tomorrow to change number of meetings for 2013. However our bylaws state I must give 1 week written notice to members. What is best solution to have this vote occur in 2012 so I can schedule 2013 meetings?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there will be another regularly scheduled meeting in 2012 do it then. If there will not be another regularly scheduled meeting in 2012 but the bylaws provide for Special Meetings then get one called and do it then. If there will be no further regular meetings in 2012 and the bylaws don't provide for Special Meetings or calling one is impractical/impossible then you are out of luck. In any case if you haven't given one weeks notice to the members holding the vote tomorrow ain't in the cards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there will be another regularly scheduled meeting in 2012 do it then. If there will not be another regularly scheduled meeting in 2012 but the bylaws provide for Special Meetings then get one called and do it then. If there will be no further regular meetings in 2012 and the bylaws don't provide for Special Meetings or calling one is impractical/impossible then you are out of luck. In any case if you haven't given one weeks notice to the members holding the vote tomorrow ain't in the cards.

I don't see why it can be done at an adjourned meeting provided the one week notice is give before said meeting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why it can be done at an adjourned meeting provided the one week notice is give before said meeting.

But I'm afraid I do: an "Adjourned meeting" (p. 93, 244) is just a continuation of the same session. Hence a notice would still have to have been given at least a week (per Guest_Guest's bylaws) prior to the initial meeting of the session.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand....

A reasonable argument can be given (indeed I gave it in an opinion some years ago - and forgot about it) that "previous notice" requirements apply to individual meetings, not entire sessions. Hence it is proper (although rather a "sharp practice") to give notice at meeting A, set up an adjourned meeting B far enough in the future that any time requirements of the notice are met, then make the subject motion at meeting B.

Maybe RONR/12 could clarify the question: Do previous notice requirements apply to distinct meetings, or distinct sessions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand....

A reasonable argument can be given (indeed I gave it in an opinion some years ago - and forgot about it) that "previous notice" requirements apply to individual meetings, not entire sessions. Hence it is proper (although rather a "sharp practice") to give notice at meeting A, set up an adjourned meeting B far enough in the future that any time requirements of the notice are met, then make the subject motion at meeting B.

Maybe RONR/12 could clarify the question: Do previous notice requirements apply to distinct meetings, or distinct sessions?

But John, this thread is concerned with a notice requirement set forth in bylaws we haven't read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand....

A reasonable argument can be given (indeed I gave it in an opinion some years ago - and forgot about it) that "previous notice" requirements apply to individual meetings, not entire sessions. Hence it is proper (although rather a "sharp practice") to give notice at meeting A, set up an adjourned meeting B far enough in the future that any time requirements of the notice are met, then make the subject motion at meeting B.

Maybe RONR/12 could clarify the question: Do previous notice requirements apply to distinct meetings, or distinct sessions?

But in this case nothing was said about notice being given at any previous meeting but only that "1 week written notice to members" had to be given

As long as the required notice is given I would think that the motion could be adopted at any kind of meeting be it regular, special, or adjourned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But in this case nothing was said about notice being given at any previous meeting but only that "1 week written notice to members" had to be given

As long as the required notice is given I would think that the motion could be adopted at any kind of meeting be it regular, special, or adjourned.

In that case, the assembly could adopt a motion to call/set an adjourned meeting in two weeks, then adopt a motion instructing the secretary to send out a new notice to the members (for the adjourned meeting), advising them of the pending vote.before the end of the present week, and then adopt a motion to adjourn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or another (more pointed) example...

A slim majority of members wanted to amend a portion of our Standing Rules in a big hurry, using the motion to amend something previously adopted, but didn’t think they could muster the 2/3 vote needed for adoption at the current meeting. No previous notice had been given, and adoption by a majority of the entire membership was out of the question. So what they did was, first, move to fix the time to which to adjourn as tomorrow morning, thus establishing an adjourned meeting the very next day. This was adopted. Then one of them got up and gave previous notice that their motion to amend the Standing Rules would be made at the adjourned meeting, thus, they asserted, allowing a majority to adopt the amendment.

"The very next day" could just as well be "that afternoon"! And there is no requirement in RONR that all the members receive notice of an adjourned meeting. Seems like a "fast one".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or another (more pointed) example...

A slim majority of members wanted to amend a portion of our Standing Rules in a big hurry, using the motion to amend something previously adopted, but didn’t think they could muster the 2/3 vote needed for adoption at the current meeting. No previous notice had been given, and adoption by a majority of the entire membership was out of the question. So what they did was, first, move to fix the time to which to adjourn as tomorrow morning, thus establishing an adjourned meeting the very next day. This was adopted. Then one of them got up and gave previous notice that their motion to amend the Standing Rules would be made at the adjourned meeting, thus, they asserted, allowing a majority to adopt the amendment.

"The very next day" could just as well be "that afternoon"! And there is no requirement in RONR that all the members receive notice of an adjourned meeting. Seems like a "fast one".

But John, how about sticking to the facts in this thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...