Motion that is out of order

[Guest Cassandra S]

Our by-laws require that only the general membership can remove a director on our Board at a meeting of the membership that has a quorum.  If consideration is to be given to removal at this meeting, the director to be removed must have written notice 5 days before the meeting.  If a motion is made to remove him and it is determined he was not given notice of this intent, I believe the motion is out of order.  Should that be called to the attention of the mover, before or after a second is made to the motion, or does it matter?  

[Chris Harrison]

If the Board member hasn't been given the 5 day notice a Point of Order can be raised (at a meeting of the GM) at any point (RONR p. 251[a]).

[Timothy]

I don't believe the motion would be out of order, but the membership wouldn't be able to vote on the motion at that meeting. Instead, there should be a motion to postpone until some date after the five days. If the director is at the meeting, the secretary could simply hand him a copy of the motion to remove him and he would have his written notification.

[J. J.]

I don't believe the motion would be out of order, but the membership wouldn't be able to vote on the motion at that meeting. Instead, there should be a motion to postpone until some date after the five days. If the director is at the meeting, the secretary could simply hand him a copy of the motion to remove him and he would have his written notification.

 

I think it would be.  Notice is of the motion being made, not when it would be considered.

 

Notice could be given at this meeting and an adjourn meeting at least five days later the motion could be made.

[Guest JIm]

I cannot find indexed, in RONR, the option for members entitled to notice to waive it. So I am not sure whether a provision to allow waiver of entitlement to notice would have to be stated in the bylaws.

 

Of course, whether or not the director in question, if in attendance at the meeting, would waive their entitlement to notice and thereby permit the motion to be in order is another matter.

[Gary c Tesser]

I cannot find indexed, in RONR, the option for members entitled to notice to waive it. So I am not sure whether a provision to allow waiver of entitlement to notice would have to be stated in the bylaws.

 

Of course, whether or not the director in question, if in attendance at the meeting, would waive their entitlement to notice and thereby permit the motion to be in order is another matter.

 

So what brings it up?

[Timothy]

I think it would be.  Notice is of the motion being made, not when it would be considered.

 

Notice could be given at this meeting and an adjourn meeting at least five days later the motion could be made.

 

Certainly, instead of making a motion to remove the director, a motion could be made to hold a meeting at which to consider the removal of the director. But Guest_Cassandra S stated that notice is required before "consideration." On page 267 and 268 in the explanation of Objection to Consideration of a Question, it is very clearly stated that "consideration" of a motion has only begun after debate has begun or any subsidiary motion other than Lay on the Table has been stated. So I still say that the motion to remove the director is not out of order. Apparently, debate and the motion to postpone would be out of order.

 

So, the correct action if the motion were made would probably be to table the motion, so that any other business could be taken care of. The group could adjourn to a later date, at which time they would take the motion from the table and begin the actual consideration of the motion.

 

Edited to say:

Assuming that the secretary provides the written notice to the director. A motion to have the secretary provide written notice may still be required. If the decision to send written notice is left up to the secretary, it gets the secretary a lot of power to veto an attempt to remove a director. If notice is required before a motion can even be made, that also gives the secretary a significant amount of veto power.

[George Mervosh]

I cannot find indexed, in RONR, the option for members entitled to notice to waive it. So I am not sure whether a provision to allow waiver of entitlement to notice would have to be stated in the bylaws.

 

Of course, whether or not the director in question, if in attendance at the meeting, would waive their entitlement to notice and thereby permit the motion to be in order is another matter.

 

Yes, your bylaws would be the place to provide for such a waiver.  No such thing exists in Robert's Rules of Order.

[Gary c Tesser]

I cannot find indexed, in RONR, the option for members entitled to notice to waive it. So I am not sure whether a provision to allow waiver of entitlement to notice would have to be stated in the bylaws.

 

Of course, whether or not the director in question, if in attendance at the meeting, would waive their entitlement to notice and thereby permit the motion to be in order is another matter.

 

So what brings it up?

 

Everyone kindly ignore Post 6.  Jim's post, #5, addresses possibly the most elegant (or quick-and-dirty, I'm not sure) solution: the accused's waiving his right to five days's notice.  My apologies to everyone, and especially to Guest_Jim, whom I advise to register with the website and stick around, unless reassembling those dismembered rabbits is simply irresistible. 

____________

 

N. B. (OK, was that a good "whom"?)