Commander Added Unrecorded Comments to Meeting Minutes

[Dan Honemann]

If, under the rules of the organization, a valid call can still be sent out to all members, then notice may be included in that call. 

[hswolfmaniac]

8 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

You won't find that specific rule in RONR because RONR expects all members to follow the rules that are written in the book, such as the one below.

Mr. Brown answered this one. 

Which reads:

"Instead of being given at a meeting, a notice can also be sent to every member with the call of the meeting at which the matter is to come up for action, except where the rules of the organization provide otherwise. In such a case, the member desiring to give get the notice writes to the secretary alone, requesting that the notice be sent with the call of the next meeting, and the secretary should then do this at the expense of the organization." (Emphasis added)

Our meetings are held monthly, and at the end of each meeting, the commander announces the date and time of our next meeting. This has been included in the agenda for several years now. Our newsletter, which is only mailed to those who donate for the cost of the stamps, also announces when we our next meeting is. When I turned in the letter, I had handed it directly to our adjutant (secretary). It was he who gave the letter to our commander for approval, but I had previously advised the adj after he finished reading the letter that approval was not required.

Our bylaws state what day and time of the month our meetings are held, but not everyone has a copy of our bylaws (that I am aware of).

 

[Dan Honemann]

If your secretary doesn't send out notices of your regular monthly meetings (RONR says that he should unless you have some rule providing otherwise), then I'm afraid that the only way for you to give previous notice is to do so at a meeting.

[hswolfmaniac]

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Thanks, Atul.  One minor nit-picky correction:  I think perhaps you intended to say, "In such a case, the member desiring to GIVE the notice writes to the secretary. . . .",  rather than the member desiring to GET the notice writes to the secretary. . . ." 

 

I will mention something here that has bothered me from the beginning of this thread.  If this is a regular meeting and no call of the meeting is sent out by the secretary or if the call of the meeting has already been sent out, I question whether the secretary must send another notice at the request of the member and at the expense of the society.  The quoted language from the bottom of page 123 and top of 124 indicates to me that the secretary is not required to send the notice.... at least not at the organization's expense.... in such a case.   I'm not even convinced that the secretary must do it if the member offers to pay the expense.  Could the member even mail the notice himself in that situation?  Perhaps if he does it a "reasonable period of time in advance of the meeting"?  I am interested in what the authorship team and other regular contributors to the forum have to say about that issue.

For reference, here again is the pertinent language from pages 123-124 of RONR:

"Instead of being given at a meeting, a notice can also be sent to every member with the call of the meeting at which [page 124] the matter is to come up for action, except where the rules of the organization provide otherwise. In such a case, the member desiring to give the notice writes to the secretary alone, requesting that the notice be sent with the call of the next meeting; and the secretary should then do this at the expense of the organization."  (Emphasis added)

Of course, a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted does not REQUIRE previous notice... previous notice just lowers the vote requirement.  The motion can still be made and considered without notice at the meeting, but subject to the higher vote threshold.

Richard, we have a regular monthly meeting unless it is cancelled for a specific reason (i.e. a hurricane in our specific area). There is no "call" sent out by the adjutant for our meetings other than announcing at the end of each of our meetings when our next meeting will be.

The higher vote threshold was one reason I had submitted my Previous Notice to Rescind; Amend Something Previously Adopted from Meeting Minutes. Based on the feedback I have received thus far, submitting my previous notice was my better option.

Your suggestion of "Could the member even mail the notice himself in that situation?  Perhaps if he does it a "reasonable period of time in advance of the meeting"? " is an interesting one except that a member will not have access to the membership roster since the member is not required to receive a roster nor is the member authorized to have one for privacy reasons.

[hswolfmaniac]

52 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If your secretary doesn't send out notices of your regular monthly meetings (RONR says that he should unless you have some rule providing otherwise), then I'm afraid that the only way for you to give previous notice is to do so at a meeting.

Well, that's not good. :-( The only mention in our bylaws (National/Post) concerning meetings is for a special meeting.

So if my only option to give previous notice is at our next meeting, then that means the subject cannot be discussed at our next meeting. I will have to wait an additional month before I am able to discuss the meeting minutes for February. Is that correct? If that is the case, am I able to request the adjutant read my previous notice letter to the membership at our next meeting?

[Dan Honemann]

7 minutes ago, hswolfmaniac said:

Well, that's not good. 😞 The only mention in our bylaws (National/Post) concerning meetings is for a special meeting.

So if my only option to give previous notice is at our next meeting, then that means the subject cannot be discussed at our next meeting. I will have to wait an additional month before I am able to discuss the meeting minutes for February. Is that correct? If that is the case, am I able to request the adjutant read my previous notice letter to the membership at our next meeting?

You can make your motion to amend or rescind (if you have said exactly what this is I'm afraid that I missed it), and if it is not adopted you can give notice that you will make the same motion again at your next regular meeting.

[hswolfmaniac]

1 minute ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

You can make your motion to amend or rescind (if you have said exactly what this is I'm afraid that I missed it), and if it is not adopted you can give notice that you will make the same motion again at your next regular meeting.

I'm confused on "(if you have said exactly what this is I'm afraid that I missed it)".

If I understand all my feedbacks (condensed version): (1) in order to move for a "rescind; amend something previously adopted," a previous notice must be submitted to the adjutant/secretary; (2) if call to a meeting has not been sent, then the adjutant can include the previous notice in the call; (3) if the organization does not require a call by the adjutant, then the member can move for a rescind/amend at the next regular meeting; (4) if the motion is not adopted, then the member can give notice that the motion will make the same motion at the next regular meeting. Is that basically it in a nutshell?

My questions now are: can I ask the adjutant to read the letter I gave him to the membership before or after I make my motion? Or shall I just move for correction?; shall I read it if my motion is not adopted and with my intentions to give notice again at our next regular meeting? A lot of questions to ask with this last feedback.

[Atul Kapur]

13 minutes ago, hswolfmaniac said:

(1) in order to move for a "rescind; amend something previously adopted," a previous notice must be submitted

No. You can make that motion without giving previous notice. The vote to adopt the motion, in that case is a 2/3 vote or a Majority of the Entire Membership (every member, whether they're at the meeting or not).

If previous notice has been given, then te vote to adopt is just a majority vote of those present and voting (or a Majority of the Entire Membership but that will also be a majority vote).

So it is to your advantage to give notice, as that lowers the threshold to adopt your motion.

If you can't, at this time, give previous notice - for the reasons in the last few posts - you can still move the motion at the next meeting. If it is not adopted, then at that same meeting you can give notice that you will move it again at the next meeting. The hope is that you can pass the lower threshold at the next meeting. Strategically, if you get anywhere between 1/2 and 2/3 in favour at the first meeting, you have a better chance of getting it adopted at the second meeting.

22 minutes ago, hswolfmaniac said:

My questions now are: can I ask the adjutant to read the letter

If the motion is not adopted at the first meeting, you need to be recognized by the chair and state that you are giving notice that you will move the same motion at the next meeting. That's outlined in the pages before 123-4 that were referenced earlier.

[Dan Honemann]

And forget about your letter.

[hswolfmaniac]

5 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

No. You can make that motion without giving previous notice. The vote to adopt the motion, in that case is a 2/3 vote or a Majority of the Entire Membership (every member, whether they're at the meeting or not).

If previous notice has been given, then te vote to adopt is just a majority vote of those present and voting (or a Majority of the Entire Membership but that will also be a majority vote).

So it is to your advantage to give notice, as that lowers the threshold to adopt your motion.

If you can't, at this time, give previous notice - for the reasons in the last few posts - you can still move the motion at the next meeting. If it is not adopted, then at that same meeting you can give notice that you will move it again at the next meeting. The hope is that you can pass the lower threshold at the next meeting. Strategically, if you get anywhere between 1/2 and 2/3 in favour at the first meeting, you have a better chance of getting it adopted at the second meeting.

If the motion is not adopted at the first meeting, you need to be recognized by the chair and state that you are giving notice that you will move the same motion at the next meeting. That's outlined in the pages before 123-4 that were referenced earlier.

Atul, but I did give previous notice with my letter to the adjutant, but the commander has forbade and will not allow the adjutant to take action on my letter in notifying the entire membership. Even though the proper procedure is for the commander to allow the adjutant to notify the entire membership of over 400, the commander in his hostile confrontation towards me told me he will not contact any of the members on this matter. I'm serious. He was very hostile in his confrontation towards me. The adjutant wants to keep peace with the commander so I doubt he will proceed with the notification. Plus, I don't believe the adjutant is strong enough to tell the commander he is wrong. Some of the members that attend the meetings these past months have even turned against me because of the commander. I feel if something is not addressed properly at a meeting, then I stand and voice my disagreement. Most of the time the other members do not say anything even if I am right. I don't foresee a 2/3 majority without the notification. At least with the notification, I have a better chance of a majority vote.

[Guest Zev]

8 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think that, in either of these instances, no previous notice can be given. 

If any additional notice(s) still falls within the number of days in which notices must fulfill then I am at a loss as to why a subsequent notice cannot be sent. It may not be advisable, or some other reason, but I cannot see why it would be prohibited. A clarification would be appreciated. I do not know if Mr. Kapur is confused, but I sure am.

[Guest Zev]

Oops. I posted it on the wrong page. It was already answered above. Ignore it please. Or better yet, delete it and this one too.

[Gary Novosielski]

2 hours ago, hswolfmaniac said:

I'm confused on "(if you have said exactly what this is I'm afraid that I missed it)".

If I understand all my feedbacks (condensed version): (1) in order to move for a "rescind; amend something previously adopted," a previous notice must be submitted to the adjutant/secretary; (2) if call to a meeting has not been sent, then the adjutant can include the previous notice in the call; (3) if the organization does not require a call by the adjutant, then the member can move for a rescind/amend at the next regular meeting; (4) if the motion is not adopted, then the member can give notice that the motion will make the same motion at the next regular meeting. Is that basically it in a nutshell?

My questions now are: can I ask the adjutant to read the letter I gave him to the membership before or after I make my motion? Or shall I just move for correction?; shall I read it if my motion is not adopted and with my intentions to give notice again at our next regular meeting? A lot of questions to ask with this last feedback.

There is no point in having the letter read at the meeting.  If notice was sent, the letter is not needed, and if notice was not sent, the letter won't help.

But even if notice was not sent, you can still make the motion to: Amend the Previously Adopted  minutes of <date> by striking <whatever you want gone>.  If notice was not sent, the motion is still in order, it just requires a higher (2/3) threshold for adoption (or a majority of the entire membership).

If the motion passes with a 2/3 vote, You're done.  If it does not, then you immediately give verbal notice that you intend to renew the motion at the next meeting (the secretary should record this).  Since there is now previous notice, it will only require a normal majority at the next meeting. 

Edited to add:

Sorry for the redundant nature of this reply.  It was in the edit buffer while I was called away, and in the finite wisdom of the developers, it can't be deleted.  :-)

Edited March 16, 2019 at 08:27 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Richard Brown]

hswolfmaniac, I think Mr. Novosielski just summed things up very well.  Forget about the letter.  Forget about anyone mailing notice to the membership.  It looks  like that is not going to happen and we haven't seen anything indicating your notice must be mailed out.  Just do as Mr.Novosielski suggested in his post immediately above.  I believe others have made this same suggestion

Edited to add:  You can argue the merits of your motion at the meeting when you make it.  It is a debatable motion and you, as the mover, have the option of speaking to it first.  Be  prepared to make your case with that one "speech".  It may be the only thing you get to say.

Edited March 16, 2019 at 08:30 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[hswolfmaniac]

3 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

There is no point in having the letter read at the meeting.  If notice was sent, the letter is not needed, and if notice was not sent, the letter won't help.

But even if notice was not sent, you can still make the motion to: Amend the Previously Adopted  minutes of <date> by striking <whatever you want gone>.  If notice was not sent, the motion is still in order, it just requires a higher (2/3) threshold for adoption (or a majority of the entire membership).

If the motion passes with a 2/3 vote, You're done.  If it does not, then you immediately give verbal notice that you intend to renew the motion at the next meeting (the secretary should record this).  Since there is now previous notice, it will only require a normal majority at the next meeting. 

Edited to add:

Sorry for the redundant nature of this reply.  It was in the edit buffer while I was called away, and in the finite wisdom of the developers, it can't be deleted.  :-)

Wow, Mr. Novosielski. Mr. Brown is right about your last feedback. I will take your suggestion to heart. At our next meeting, I will make the motion under old business since the minutes have already been accepted as read. I will count the members present, then figure out the 2/3. If I'm lucky, then maybe I can get enough members to accept my reasoning for the motion. If not, then I will give them my verbal notice for the following month. Hopefully, they will accept my reasoning. I will have my letter in front of me in order to gather my thoughts while I have the floor. I will mention the commander's actions while I have the floor in hopes that they will see my desire to make things right in the past and future minutes. I will also suggest to the members that the commander appoint another adjutant if the current adjutant does not feel he is capable of "speedily" typing the minutes. (However, I will speak to the adjutant first so that he can realize the importance of his impartiality when typing the minutes.)

I will also ask for the commander's censure due to his hostilities and confrontational attitude concerning my letter.

Thank you.

[hswolfmaniac]

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

hswolfmaniac, I think Mr. Novosielski just summed things up very well.  Forget about the letter.  Forget about anyone mailing notice to the membership.  It looks  like that is not going to happen and we haven't seen anything indicating your notice must be mailed out.  Just do as Mr.Novosielski suggested in his post immediately above.  I believe others have made this same suggestion

Edited to add:  You can argue the merits of your motion at the meeting when you make it.  It is a debatable motion and you, as the mover, have the option of speaking to it first.  Be  prepared to make your case with that one "speech".  It may be the only thing you get to say.

Yes, others had made similar suggestions, but I was at a loss if I didn't submit the letter. Mr. Novosielski's suggestion encompasses what all of us have been discussing, but he has brought it down to a more workable level. But you are correct also in that I will have (possibly) just one chance to win them over on the first try.

I have appreciated your feedbacks. Thank you.

Edited March 17, 2019 at 02:18 AM by hswolfmaniac
Edited to change paragraph 2: I have appreciated each of you as well as all of your feedbacks. I cannot thank you enough for all of your help. Thank you.

[Richard Brown]

4 hours ago, hswolfmaniac said:

I will take your suggestion to heart. At our next meeting, I will make the motion under old business since the minutes have already been accepted as read.  (Emphasis added by R. Brown)

This motion should actually be made under new business.  First, there is really no such category in RONR  as "old business".  That is a common misconception.  The category is "unfinished business and general orders".  Unfinished business is a very particular type of business under RONR, namely, an item of business that was actually pending before the assembly at the time the previous meeting adjourned.  There is no such thing as "old business". 

Even though your motion to amend the minutes of a previous meeting concerns something that happened in the past, it is still new business, not "old business" or "unfinished business". The category "unfinished business and general orders" is taken up beginning on page 358.  You might pay particular attention to the footnote on page 358 regarding the use of the term "old business" which reads as follows: 

The expression "old business" should be avoided, since it may incorrectly suggest the further consideration of matters that have been finally disposed of. (Footnote, page 358).

4 hours ago, hswolfmaniac said:

I will count the members present, then figure out the 2/3

I suppose you can do that if you want to in order to assess your chances of success, but the two thirds vote is based on the members present and voting, not the members present.  If they all vote, it is the same, but I suspect there might be some abstentions. The alternative of the vote of a majority of the entire membership is based on the total  membership, regardless of the number present or voting.

Edited to add:  It is possible that your organization has an agenda or order of business category called "old business".  If so, it is up to your organization to determine what items of business belong in that category.  Whenever that category appears, it is usually based on a misunderstanding of what is "unfinished business" and the erroneous assumption that any motions which have to do with anything that has been done in the past is "old business".  If your organization does in fact have that category, you have to figure out what it is for. It does not exist in RONR.

Edited March 17, 2019 at 04:59 AM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[hswolfmaniac]

13 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

This motion should actually be made under new business.  First, there is really no such category in RONR  as "old business".  That is a common misconception.  The category is "unfinished business and general orders".  Unfinished business is a very particular type of business under RONR, namely, an item of business that was actually pending before the assembly at the time the previous meeting adjourned.  There is no such thing as "old business". 

Even though your motion to amend the minutes of a previous meeting concerns something that happened in the past, it is still new business, not "old business" or "unfinished business". The category "unfinished business and general orders" is taken up beginning on page 358.  You might pay particular attention to the footnote on page 358 regarding the use of the term "old business" which reads as follows: 

The expression "old business" should be avoided, since it may incorrectly suggest the further consideration of matters that have been finally disposed of. (Footnote, page 358).

I suppose you can do that if you want to in order to assess your chances of success, but the two thirds vote is based on the members present and voting, not the members present.  If they all vote, it is the same, but I suspect there might be some abstentions. The alternative of the vote of a majority of the entire membership is based on the total  membership, regardless of the number present or voting.

Edited to add:  It is possible that your organization has an agenda or order of business category called "old business".  If so, it is up to your organization to determine what items of business belong in that category.  Whenever that category appears, it is usually based on a misunderstanding of what is "unfinished business" and the erroneous assumption that any motions which have to do with anything that has been done in the past is "old business".  If your organization does in fact have that category, you have to figure out what it is for. It does not exist in RONR.

Sorry Mr. Brown. I meant unfinished business. Our agenda says (or used to say) old/unfinished business. I'm not quite sure what it has now because we (members) don't receive a copy of the agenda.

I was hoping to bring up the "Rescind; Amend Something Previously Adopted" motion during unfinished business because we're also having our elections next month at our regular meeting. I wanted to be able to discuss this before we have our elections. We had our first set of nominations this month (March) so we'll be completing our nominations and elections next month. The current commander has been nominated again for the next year with no one else nominated at this time. The nominations and elections will probably be brought up under unfinished business so I was hoping to have my say-so before we started the election process.

Present and voting, huh. Hmmm. There usually are members who, although not verbally abstaining, say nothing or do not vote. If I understand you correctly, if we have 20 members in attendance, and if a total of only 15 members vote (whether yay or nay), then 2/3 of those actually voting would be 10. So 10 of the voting would have had to cast a yay vote in order to pass or 10 nays in order to be defeated. In order to ensure accuracy I would have to call for a hand count. Am I correct in my deduction? Am I also correct in deducing, using the same 15 voting as a majority, if only 9 (or 8.5) vote yay and 7 (or 6.5) vote nay, then the motion passes, but if  9 (or 8.5) vote nay and 7 (or 6.5) are yay, then the motion is defeated.

(I'm too tired to go on right now.)

 

 

[Guest Zev]

23 minutes ago, hswolfmaniac said:

Am I correct in my deduction?

Not quite. Your math is off.

If 15 votes are cast and a 2/3 result is needed to adopt the motion, then 10 must vote aye and 5 vote nay in order to adopt the motion. Anything less than 10 and the motion is defeated. It may be easier to think in terms that twice as many need to vote aye than the nay votes.

If the motion is defeated and you give notice, then at the next meeting with the same 15 votes are cast, then 8 votes aye (anything above 7.5) and 7 votes nay constitute a majority and the motion is adopted. Anything less than 8 and the motion is defeated. In this case only more votes aye than vote nay is needed to adopt the motion.

[hswolfmaniac]

5 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Not quite. Your math is off.

If 15 votes are cast and a 2/3 result is needed to adopt the motion, then 10 must vote aye and 5 vote nay in order to adopt the motion. Anything less than 10 and the motion is defeated. It may be easier to think in terms that twice as many need to vote aye than the nay votes.

If the motion is defeated and you give notice, then at the next meeting with the same 15 votes are cast, then 8 votes aye (anything above 7.5) and 7 votes nay constitute a majority and the motion is adopted. Anything less than 8 and the motion is defeated. In this case only more votes aye than vote nay is needed to adopt the motion.

Thank you, Zev. My mind was exhausted when was trying to do the math. I knew my math was off before going to sleep, but I could not figure out where my math calculations were off. :-( You just showed me where. Thank you. :-)

[hswolfmaniac]

6 hours ago, hswolfmaniac said:

Sorry Mr. Brown. I meant unfinished business. Our agenda says (or used to say) old/unfinished business. I'm not quite sure what it has now because we (members) don't receive a copy of the agenda.

I was hoping to bring up the "Rescind; Amend Something Previously Adopted" motion during unfinished business because we're also having our elections next month at our regular meeting. I wanted to be able to discuss this before we have our elections. We had our first set of nominations this month (March) so we'll be completing our nominations and elections next month. The current commander has been nominated again for the next year with no one else nominated at this time. The nominations and elections will probably be brought up under unfinished business so I was hoping to have my say-so before we started the election process.

Present and voting, huh. Hmmm. There usually are members who, although not verbally abstaining, say nothing or do not vote. If I understand you correctly, if we have 20 members in attendance, and if a total of only 15 members vote (whether yay or nay), then 2/3 of those actually voting would be 10. So 10 of the voting would have had to cast a yay vote in order to pass or 10 nays in order to be defeated. In order to ensure accuracy I would have to call for a hand count. Am I correct in my deduction? Am I also correct in deducing, using the same 15 voting as a majority, if only 9 (or 8.5)  8 (or 7.5) vote yay and 7 (or 6.5) vote nay, then the motion passes, but if  9 (or 8.5) 8 (or 7.5) vote nay and 7 (or 6.5) are yay, "Guest Zev: "Anything less than 8 and the motion is defeated."" then the motion is defeated. (I think I have the correct math now. I was able to sleep for a little while.)

(I'm too tired to go on right now.)

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2019 at 02:15 PM by hswolfmaniac
To correct math calculations. Guest Zev provided corrections. Thank you, Guest Zev.

[Shmuel Gerber]

The correct spelling is "yea", but I like the idea of yay votes. 😀

[hswolfmaniac]

3 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

The correct spelling is "yea", but I like the idea of yay votes. 😀

LOL. Absolutely. :-D

[hswolfmaniac]

3 minutes ago, hswolfmaniac said:

LOL. Absolutely. :-D   

 

[Gary Novosielski]

4 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

The correct spelling is "yea", but I like the idea of yay votes. 😀

...which can be reconsidered by one voting on the triumphant side.