mikalac Posted October 14, 2014 at 05:49 PM Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 at 05:49 PM The emphasis in RR is when notice must be given at a member meeting, usually for important subjects, such as amending bylaws, etc. However, it would seem to me to be a good idea for a member to request that the Sec'y give notice on any question on which the member wants lots of thinking and discussion of the question by members before the meeting where time for thought and debate are limited. I don't see anywhere in RR where putting any question into the notice is prohibited. Everyone here OK with this idea? Note: Assume that the question is not frivolous and is in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted October 14, 2014 at 06:01 PM Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 at 06:01 PM An example motion might be more fruitful than an abstract, blank motion. How about this. Assume that the flag in the corner is getting old, and needs to be replaced, out of respect for the Colors.A member wishes to dutifully replace the flag.He can either (a.) make a motion ("I move that we replace our flag"),or, per your hypothetical scenario,(b.) give notice ("I am giving notice that I intended to make a motion at our next meeting, 'to replace our flag'"). I see no harm in giving notice.But it is leaning toward being "dilatory", as it gives no real value to the motion, or the ancillary things (e.g., buget, timing, holiday upcoming, etc.). The same weight can be given to the idea via other means:(a.) a committee, who will do the heavy considerations of cost and vendor selection.(b.) assigning the appropriate party (e.g., treasurer) to be authorized to spend the necessary money, with their choice of vendor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted October 14, 2014 at 06:16 PM Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 at 06:16 PM I think I would have two major concerns off the top of my head (and more may come later):1) There would need to be a clear differentiation between notice that is required vs that lowers the voting threshold vs just for the members' attention (and won't have any potential scope of notice issues).2) The Call of the meeting could easily get bogged down by these "notices" if lots of members decide they want "lots of thinking and discussion of the question by members before the meeting." If I were the Secretary I would probably decline such a request (lest I allow it once and then everyone decides to follow suit later) and suggest the member propose a policy at the next meeting instructing the Secretary how and when such informational "notices" should be included in the Call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted October 14, 2014 at 06:37 PM Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 at 06:37 PM . . . it would seem to me to be a good idea for a member to request that the Sec'y give notice on any question on which the member wants lots of thinking and discussion of the question by members before the meeting where time for thought and debate are limited. Isn't "lots of thinking and discussion" what committees are for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikalac Posted October 14, 2014 at 07:01 PM Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 at 07:01 PM An example motion might be more fruitful than an abstract, blank motion. How about this. Assume that the flag in the corner is getting old, and needs to be replaced, out of respect for the Colors.A member wishes to dutifully replace the flag.He can either (a.) make a motion ("I move that we replace our flag"),or, per your hypothetical scenario,(b.) give notice ("I am giving notice that I intended to make a motion at our next meeting, 'to replace our flag'"). I see no harm in giving notice.But it is leaning toward being "dilatory", as it gives no real value to the motion, or the ancillary things (e.g., buget, timing, holiday upcoming, etc.). The same weight can be given to the idea via other means:(a.) a committee, who will do the heavy considerations of cost and vendor selection.(b.) assigning the appropriate party (e.g., treasurer) to be authorized to spend the necessary money, with their choice of vendor.Can I assume from your more than ample reply that the answer to my abstract question is that does not violate I think I would have two major concerns off the top of my head (and more may come later):1) There would need to be a clear differentiation between notice that is required vs that lowers the voting threshold vs just for the members' attention (and won't have any potential scope of notice issues).2) The Call of the meeting could easily get bogged down by these "notices" if lots of members decide they want "lots of thinking and discussion of the question by members before the meeting." If I were the Secretary I would probably decline such a request (lest I allow it once and then everyone decides to follow suit later) and suggest the member propose a policy at the next meeting instructing the Secretary how and when such informational "notices" should be included in the Call.I had in mind "substantial" questions that are complex and require lots of thought and discussion. Referring it to a committee delays it a year for the next annual meeting, which the member doesn't want to do. I realize that "substantial" would have to be defined, which might not be easy. Associating big bucks with the question might be a way to keeping out the insubstantial questions. Interesting that you say that the sec'y can decline such a request. We had a thread a while back regarding whether the sec'y's should regarding a member's request for notice (p.124 ll. 1-5). The pundit consensus in that thread was that should = shall; IOW, the sec'y must put a member's notice in the call. Now I'm not so sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted October 14, 2014 at 07:33 PM Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 at 07:33 PM Interesting that you say that the sec'y can decline such a request. We had a thread a while back regarding whether the sec'y's should regarding a member's request for notice (p.124 ll. 1-5. The pundit consensus in that thread was that should = shall; IOW, the sec'y must put a member's notice in the call. Now I'm not so sure.I don't recall a thread regarding this type of situation but if you can link to it I would be more than willing to check it out. However, when RONR talks about previous notice it is referring to when said notice is either required under the bylaws or lessens the voting requirement in order to adopt a motion (RONR p. 121 ll. 21-23) which is different than "notice" of an informational nature. It makes perfect sense for the Secretary be required to include previous notice if requested when its absence would either prevent a member from making that motion or change what vote would be required in order to adopt it. On the other hand, the presence or absence of an informational "notice" in the Call isn't going to affect the parliamentary situation one bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted October 14, 2014 at 08:00 PM Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 at 08:00 PM The pundit consensus in that thread was that should = shall . . .If that was the consensus, they weren't pundits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikalac Posted October 14, 2014 at 08:03 PM Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 at 08:03 PM I don't recall a thread regarding this type of situation but if you can link to it I would be more than willing to check it out. However, when RONR talks about previous notice it is referring to when said notice is either required under the bylaws or lessens the voting requirement in order to adopt a motion (RONR p. 121 ll. 21-23) which is different than "notice" of an informational nature. It makes perfect sense for the Secretary be required to include previous notice if requested when its absence would either prevent a member from making that motion or change what vote would be required in order to adopt it. On the other hand, the presence or absence of an informational "notice" in the Call isn't going to affect the parliamentary situation one bit.I refer you to p. 122. Lines 1- 6 are examples of where notice must be given. Then look a the following line: "Accordingly, it is ordinarily desirable to give previous notice if there is a possibility of serious disagreement." That sentence seems to open up the possibility that any question that is contentious, and big buck questions will certainly be contentious, are important enough for the sec'y to have no option but to put them into the call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted October 14, 2014 at 08:05 PM Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 at 08:05 PM That sentence seems to open up the possibility that any question that is contentious, and big buck questions will certainly be contentious, are important enough for the sec'y to have no option but to put them into the call. The possibility that the secretary has no option? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 14, 2014 at 08:12 PM Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 at 08:12 PM I refer you to p. 122. Lines 1- 6 are examples of where notice must be given. Then look a the following line: "Accordingly, it is ordinarily desirable to give previous notice if there is a possibility of serious disagreement." That sentence seems to open up the possibility that any question that is contentious, and big buck questions will certainly be contentious, are important enough for the sec'y to have no option but to put them into the call. I understand your point and see where there can be situations where, for one reason or another, a member wants to give previous notice that he will be making a certain motion at the next meeting even though previous notice is not required. I think RONR is silent as to whether the secretary must include that notice in the call of the meeting, but it seems appropriate and prudent to do so.... unless for some reason it is unduly burdensome. I don't see how giving notice of a normal motion of only a few words is burdensome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikalac Posted October 14, 2014 at 08:21 PM Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 at 08:21 PM I understand your point and see where there can be situations where, for one reason or another, a member wants to give previous notice that he will be making a certain motion at the next meeting even though previous notice is not required. I think RONR is silent as to whether the secretary must include that notice in the call of the meeting, but it seems appropriate and prudent to do so.... unless for some reason it is unduly burdensome. I don't see how giving notice of a normal motion of only a few words is burdensome. Then you agree that the sec'y's "should" is not necessarily a "shall" and the pundit who said that earlier should be reduced in rank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 14, 2014 at 08:21 PM Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 at 08:21 PM I understand your point and see where there can be situations where, for one reason or another, a member wants to give previous notice that he will be making a certain motion at the next meeting even though previous notice is not required. I think RONR is silent as to whether the secretary must include that notice in the call of the meeting, but it seems appropriate and prudent to do so.... unless for some reason it is unduly burdensome. I don't see how giving notice of a normal motion of only a few words is burdensome. The examples at the top of page 122 are not examples of instances in which previous notice must be given in order for a motion to be adopted. They are instances in which previous notice must be given in order for a motion to be adopted by a reduced voting requirement. RONR goes on to say therefore, that " ... it is ordinarily desirable to give previous notice if there is a possibility of serious disagreement." This is not meant to say that it is desirable to give such notice in instances where it will make no difference at all with respect to the vote required for adoption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted October 14, 2014 at 08:31 PM Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 at 08:31 PM Then you agree that the sec'y's "should" is not necessarily a "shall" . . . I'm sure you're very busy but, at the risk of revealing myself to be the curmudgeon that I am, is it really so hard to spell out "secretary"? You'll note that everyone else (including Mr. Harrison and Mr. Brown) has managed to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted October 14, 2014 at 11:22 PM Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 at 11:22 PM I refer you to p. 122. Lines 1- 6 are examples of where notice must be given. Then look a the following line: "Accordingly, it is ordinarily desirable to give previous notice if there is a possibility of serious disagreement." That sentence seems to open up the possibility that any question that is contentious, and big buck questions will certainly be contentious, are important enough for the sec'y to have no option but to put them into the call.That is a "spin" I did not get from reading the full paragraph of page 122.See quote box below. Motions which have the effect of changing or nullifying previous action of the assembly―such as the motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted (35), the motion to Discharge a Committee (36), or a motion to postpone an event already scheduled―require previous notice if they are to be adopted by only a majority vote. Accordingly, it is ordinarily desirable to give previous notice if there is a possibility of serious disagreement. The adoption amendment of special rules of order requires either (a.) previous notice and a two-thirds vote or (b.) a vote of a majority of the entire membership―as does the amendment of bylaws if they do not prescribe the procedure for their amendment, which they should do (see also Table of Rules Relating to Motions, tinted pp. 6-29). Bylaws sometimes also provide a requirement of notice for original main motions dealing with certain subjects (compare Standard Characteristic 7[a], p. 103). I think that one sentence was impying,". . . so serious a disagreement that a TWO-THIRDS VOTE may not occur right then; thus the benefit of givng previous notice to achieve the ordinary MAJORITY VOTE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 16, 2014 at 12:46 PM Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 at 12:46 PM I refer you to p. 122. Lines 1- 6 are examples of where notice must be given. Then look a the following line: "Accordingly, it is ordinarily desirable to give previous notice if there is a possibility of serious disagreement." That sentence seems to open up the possibility that any question that is contentious, and big buck questions will certainly be contentious, are important enough for the sec'y to have no option but to put them into the call.When a motion does not require notice and notice does not have the effect of reducing the threshold for adoption of the motion, there is no requirement in RONR that the Secretary include a requested notice in the call, no matter how contentious the question might be.What this really sounds like to me is that you feel that certain types of motions should require notice, and the society is certainly free to adopt a rule requiring as much if it wishes to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 16, 2014 at 02:41 PM Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 at 02:41 PM I refer you to p. 122. Lines 1- 6 are examples of where notice must be given. Then look a the following line: "Accordingly, it is ordinarily desirable to give previous notice if there is a possibility of serious disagreement." That sentence seems to open up the possibility that any question that is contentious, and big buck questions will certainly be contentious, are important enough for the sec'y to have no option but to put them into the call. When a motion does not require notice and notice does not have the effect of reducing the threshold for adoption of the motion, there is no requirement in RONR that the Secretary include a requested notice in the call, no matter how contentious the question might be.What this really sounds like to me is that you feel that certain types of motions should require notice, and the society is certainly free to adopt a rule requiring as much if it wishes to do so. I would take the phrase "it is desirable" to mean that it's a good idea to give notice when a contentious issue is coming up. i would not say that the secretary has no option. The fact that it's a good idea, doesn't make it mandatory, and unless you have adopted a custom rule, it's not mandatory. But I would also not go so far as to say that if you want certain types of motions to require notice, you have to adopt a rule. I think that, in the absence of a rule, the society can freely decide on a case-by-case basis whether to provide notice of a particular matter that is scheduled to come up at a future meeting. And I think it's often a good idea, even if no rule requires it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikalac Posted October 16, 2014 at 04:08 PM Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 at 04:08 PM I would take the phrase "it is desirable" to mean that it's a good idea to give notice when a contentious issue is coming up. i would not say that the secretary has no option. The fact that it's a good idea, doesn't make it mandatory, and unless you have adopted a custom rule, it's not mandatory. But I would also not go so far as to say that if you want certain types of motions to require notice, you have to adopt a rule. I think that, in the absence of a rule, the society can freely decide on a case-by-case basis whether to provide notice of a particular matter that is scheduled to come up at a future meeting. And I think it's often a good idea, even if no rule requires it.If I can sum up, there are questions as cited in RR for which the sec'y must give notice in the call, but with all other questions, he/she has the option to include or exclude them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted October 16, 2014 at 05:18 PM Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 at 05:18 PM If I can sum up, there are questions as cited in RR for which the sec'y must give notice in the call, but with all other questions, he/she has the option to include or exclude them.No.The secretary is not a gate-keeper of "notices."The secretary is not to "judge" a notice to be included or excluded from the call-to-meeting. If a notice is submitted, then the secretary should treat the notice as legitimate, short of a rule saying otherwise. ***** Chairs must make rulings, inside a meeting. Secretary do not make rulings, outside of a meeting.Else, the bad secretary will suppress all notices for disciplinary action against the secretary, or against the secretary's friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 16, 2014 at 05:53 PM Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 at 05:53 PM If I can sum up, there are questions as cited in RR for which the sec'y must give notice in the call, but with all other questions, he/she has the option to include or exclude them. No, it wouldn't be up to the secretary. Well, unless the secretary was the one giving notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted October 16, 2014 at 06:07 PM Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 at 06:07 PM While I agree that it isn't the secretary who makes rulings, the position of secretary often has far more power associated with it than people realize. Often, the secretary has more power than the president, because the president presides at meetings, but the secretary carries out the will of the association. For that to happen, the secretary must know and understand what the rules of the association are, and act accordingly. It isn't as simple as the secretary sending out a notice anytime someone requests that it be done. It is one thing if the bylaws require notice to be sent to bylaw changes, but for other things, the secretary must decide whether notice is beneficial or even required before spending the association's money to send out a notice. That isn't the same as a ruling, but some people may view it as being a gatekeeper. But that's just part of the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikalac Posted October 16, 2014 at 06:08 PM Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 at 06:08 PM No, it wouldn't be up to the secretary. Well, unless the secretary was the one giving notice.Then you and Kim agree with my original idea: The secretary must give notice to any member requesting it, even if not required by RR. Seems that some members here disagree with you both, but I'm on your side (naturally) and will ignore their advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikalac Posted October 16, 2014 at 06:09 PM Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 at 06:09 PM While I agree that it isn't the secretary who makes rulings, the position of secretary often has far more power associated with it than people realize. Often, the secretary has more power than the president, because the president presides at meetings, but the secretary carries out the will of the association. For that to happen, the secretary must know and understand what the rules of the association are, and act accordingly. It isn't as simple as the secretary sending out a notice anytime someone requests that it be done. It is one thing if the bylaws require notice to be sent to bylaw changes, but for other things, the secretary must decide whether notice is beneficial or even required before spending the association's money to send out a notice. That isn't the same as a ruling, but some people may view it as being a gatekeeper. But that's just part of the job.I think we have a disagreement among the pundits. FYI, the bylaws say nothing on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 16, 2014 at 06:21 PM Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 at 06:21 PM I'd say that the secretary should normally comply with all "reasonable" requests, using the same cop-out that RONR uses when defaulting to a "reasonable" advance time period.But if someone wants a ream of notices included in every copy of the call for a meeting, the secretary can tell him to take a hike. Also, the assembly itself can direct the secretary to send a written notice to all members, or a committee reporting a recommendation might, rather than moving it immediately, request notice be sent in anticipation of moving it next month. This notice business strikes me as something that is susceptible to over-thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikalac Posted October 16, 2014 at 06:39 PM Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 at 06:39 PM This notice business strikes me as something that is susceptible to over-thinking.And I think that this reply is a cop out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 16, 2014 at 06:45 PM Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 at 06:45 PM Wherever RONR requires that notice of intention to make a motion be included in (or with) the call of a meeting for any reason, then the secretary is obliged to do so. Otherwise, as far as the rules in RONR are concerned, the secretary is under no such obligation. There is nothing in RONR that requires that notice be sent just because there is a possibility of serious disagreement as to whether or not a motion should be adopted, or simply because a member wants the notice to be included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.