Tiny Typo

[Rob Elsman]

I believe the first word in RONR (11th ed.), p. 320, l. 29  should be read as "at", instead of "as".

[jstackpo]

First of all, you are to be HIGHLY commended for actually reading the chapter on reconsideration!

And I agree with you that "at" is the correct word there.

[Dan Honemann]

19 minutes ago, reelsman said:

I believe the first word in RONR (11th ed.), p. 320, l. 29  should be read as "at", instead of "as".

Well, you've certainly got that right. Thanks.  

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 12/30/2017 at 11:27 AM, reelsman said:

I believe the first word in RONR (11th ed.), p. 320, l. 29  should be read as "at", instead of "as".

Thanks. You might want to review the following post as well, which has a collection of various typos in RONR 11:

http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/27129-typos-in-the-11th-edition/

And that post includes a link to an earlier comment http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/27716-reconsider-where-previous-question-carried/?tab=comments#comment-159238 with the same typo that you found. But please keep reading -- you may yet find a new typo!

 

[Guest Zev]

And don't forget "in an unusual circumstance" p. 575 l. 23. In the past there was considerable discussion about what constituted an "emergency" and eventually RONR got rid of it. If this thing stays, eventually someone is going to object to the changing of a meeting date based on what is and what is not an "unusual circumstance." And the discussion will take off from there.

[Joshua Katz]

I don't know.  The tax code gets away with "ordinary and necessary."  (Which, of course, means helpful.  Meanwhile, "convenience of the employer" means business necessity.)

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

And don't forget "in an unusual circumstance" p. 575 l. 23. In the past there was considerable discussion about what constituted an "emergency" and eventually RONR got rid of it. If this thing stays, eventually someone is going to object to the changing of a meeting date based on what is and what is not an "unusual circumstance." And the discussion will take off from there.

I don’t see a problem. It would seem to me that any reason which necessitates changing the date of a particular regular meeting will, by definition, be an unusual circumstance. If it was a usual circumstance, then it would be necessary to change the dates of regular meetings generally, rather than a particular meeting.