Continuing Breach in Committee?

[DrEntropy]

Question 1:  A main motion is adopted in a committee meeting. At the very next meeting it is rescinded by a voice vote (majority). It is later determined that not  all committee members who voted for the original motion were present, and no notice (of the motion) was given.   Is there a continuing breach? Seems the action is null and void by page 251 l. 11-15

 

Question 2:  A main motion is made but lost in a committee meeting. At the very next meeting it is reconsidered by a voice vote (majority). It is later determined that not  all committee members who voted against the original motion were present, and no notice (of the motion) was given.   Is there a continuing breach?

Edit: attempted to clarify...

[Dan Honemann]

Question 1:  A main motion is adopted in a committee meeting. At the very next meeting it is rescinded by a voice vote (majority). It is later determined that not  all committee members who voted for the original motion were present, and no notice was given.   Is there a continuing breach? Seems the action is null and void by page 251 l. 11-15

 

Question 2:  A main motion is made but lost in a committee meeting. At the very next meeting it is reconsidered by a voice vote (majority). It is later determined that not  all committee members who voted against the original motion were present, and no notice was given.   Is there a continuing breach?  

 

The answer to both questions is "no".

[DrEntropy]

The answer to both questions is "no".

 

Ah! I was looking to resolve the asymmetric situation in the wrong direction, and forgot about interpretation 2006-18 !

[Guest Randyl Kent Plampin]

Greetings:

 

I must have missed something here. The original posting claimed that the committee met and no notice was made of this meeting.

 

RONR 11, page 500, on line 9-12 says, "The informalities and modifications of the regular rules of parliamentary procedure listed on pages 487-88 for use in small boards are applicable during the meetings of all standing and special committes, ...," then on page 486 line 33-35 it says, "In any case, a board can transact business only in a regular or properly called meeting of which every board member has been notified..."

 

I can understand the gentleman's conclusion that there is no continuing breach, however, the action itself appears to be null and void because no notice was sent. The original poster mentions this effect, however, for a different reason.

 

Does this require a new thread at this point?

 

Best regards,

Randyl Kent Plampin

[Dan Honemann]

Greetings:

 

I must have missed something here. The original posting claimed that the committee met and no notice was made of this meeting.

 

RONR 11, page 500, on line 9-12 says, "The informalities and modifications of the regular rules of parliamentary procedure listed on pages 487-88 for use in small boards are applicable during the meetings of all standing and special committes, ...," then on page 486 line 33-35 it says, "In any case, a board can transact business only in a regular or properly called meeting of which every board member has been notified..."

 

I can understand the gentleman's conclusion that there is no continuing breach, however, the action itself appears to be null and void because no notice was sent. The original poster mentions this effect, however, for a different reason.

 

Does this require a new thread at this point?

 

Best regards,

Randyl Kent Plampin

 

The "notice" referred to in Question 1 is notice of intent to make the motion to Rescind (RONR, 11th ed., p. 306. l. 34 to p. 307, l. 2), and the "notice" referred to in Question 2 is notice of intent to make the motion to Reconsider (p. 330, ll. 6-9).

[DrEntropy]

Sorry, I was trying to be concise and overshot a bit. The notice indeed refers to the intent to make the motions in question. The meeting itself was properly called.