Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Does postponing a motion have same effect as giving notice?


Recommended Posts

One of the ways to give previous notice for a motion is to do so orally at the previous meeting if that meeting is within a quarterly time interval. A motion, for which previous notice was not given, is postponed to a later meeting within a quarterly time interval. Does this have the same effect as previous notice? Consider these two scenarios.

Situation A

At a society's regular monthly meeting in July, a motion is made to amend a previously adopted motion. No notice was given for this motion. If the question is put on the motion at the July meeting, its adoption will require a two-thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

Instead, the motion is postponed to the next regular meeting in August. At the meeting in August, the motion is put to a vote. What is the vote required to adopt?

Situation B

Assume the same facts as in Situation A, except that at the meeting in July, the motion is postponed to an adjourned meeting set for the next day. If the motion is put at the adjourned meeting, what is the vote required to adopt?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest George Mervosh

A 2/3 vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership will be needed. Postponing something is not the same as giving previous notice. If notice had been given and the motion postponed its status would not change either as a majority vote will suffice. Postponing doesn't change the vote required to adopt a motion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A 2/3 vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership will be needed. Postponing something is not the same as giving previous notice. If notice had been given and the motion postponed its status would not change either as a majority vote will suffice. Postponing doesn't change the vote required to adopt a motion.

Under situation A, if the notice requirement could be met between the July and August meetings, would that allow lowering the voting threshold to a majority vote? Or would it be that since the motion was already on the floor and then postponed, you can't provide notice for it anymore while it's still (in a loose manner of speaking) pending? I tend towards the latter thought here, and think the only way to allow a majority vote (with notice) would be either to defeat the motion and Renew it in August, or withdraw the motion, and then give notice for the August meeting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under situation A, if the notice requirement could be met between the July and August meetings, would that allow lowering the voting threshold to a majority vote? Or would it be that since the motion was already on the floor and then postponed, you can't provide notice for it anymore while it's still (in a loose manner of speaking) pending? I tend towards the latter thought here, and think the only way to allow a majority vote (with notice) would be either to defeat the motion and Renew it in August, or withdraw the motion, and then give notice for the August meeting.

I think it's the latter as well in the case of postponement, since previous notice is "an announcement that the motion will be introduced....." RONR (11th ed.), p. 121, ll. 24-25, not an announcement after the fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's the latter as well in the case of postponement, since previous notice is "an announcement that the motion will be introduced....." RONR (11th ed.), p. 121, ll. 24-25, not an announcement after the fact.

I agree that, as the rules now stand, “previous notice” is an announcement that a motion “will be introduced” (p. 121, ll. 23-30). Once a motion has been made, it is no longer possible to give “previous notice” of an intention to make it (p. 306, ll. 26-27; p. 312, l. 5). In this respect, I am a strict constructionist.

On the other hand, when construing these rules relating to the giving of “previous notice”, I have no problem at all in construing the word “meeting” as sometimes meaning “meeting” and as sometimes meaning “session”. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that, as the rules now stand, “previous notice” is an announcement that a motion “will be introduced” (p. 121, ll. 23-30). Once a motion has been made, it is no longer possible to give “previous notice” of an intention to make it (p. 306, ll. 26-27; p. 312, l. 5). In this respect, I am a strict constructionist.

On the other hand, when construing these rules relating to the giving of “previous notice”, I have no problem at all in construing the word “meeting” as sometimes meaning “meeting” and as sometimes meaning “session”. :)

What if someone gives previous notice that they are going to make a motion to rescind something at the next meeting and someone else moves to rescind it during the current meeting.

If the motion to rescind doesn't pass is said notice still valid?

Also if a motion to rescind is voted down can notice be given that the same motion will be made at the next meeting (session)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if someone gives previous notice that they are going to make a motion to rescind something at the next meeting and someone else moves to rescind it during the current meeting.

If the motion to rescind doesn't pass is said notice still valid?

Also if a motion to rescind is voted down can notice be given that the same motion will be made at the next meeting (session)?

Since these questions (the answer to both of which, I think, is "yes") are about something other than whether or not postponement may constitute previous notice, please bear in mind that old admonition about starting a new 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...