Previous notice then inquorate meeting

[Guest Puzzling]

If in month 1 notice to withdraw some rule of order was given (not bylaws)

In month 2 not enough members came to the meeting for a quorum, the meeting was cancelled.

In month 3 there hopefully will be a quorum. 

Is the notice still valid or does the withdraw needs a 2/3 vote, and if that is the case if the 2/3 vote is not there, is it okay to give notice again, so in month 4 hopefully there is a quorum and a majority for it?

 

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

If in month 1 notice to withdraw some rule of order was given (not bylaws)

I assume what is meant is notice to rescind a rule of order.

2 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

In month 2 not enough members came to the meeting for a quorum, the meeting was cancelled.

Please elaborate on what is meant when you say the meeting was "cancelled." A meeting without a quorum is still supposed to be held, even although the meeting will be able to do very little. Do you mean that the meeting immediately adjourned?

2 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Is the notice still valid or does the withdraw needs a 2/3 vote, and if that is the case if the 2/3 vote is not there, is it okay to give notice again, so in month 4 hopefully there is a quorum and a majority for it?

If I understand the facts correctly, the assembly has regular monthly meetings. At the regular meeting in Month 1, notice was given that, at the next regular meeting, a member would move to rescind a special rule of order. The regular meeting in Month 2 was unable to conduct any business due to the absence of a quorum.

If this is correct, then my view is yes, the notice is still valid for the regular meeting in Month 3.

It should be noted, however, that the requirements for amending a special rule of order are a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership (the latter of which seems unlikely, given that the assembly in question seems barely able to meet its quorum requirement). So it seems that most likely, a 2/3 vote will still be required for adoption.

"Adoption or amendment of special rules of order that are separate from the bylaws requires either (a) previous notice (10:44–51) and a two-thirds vote or (b) a vote of a majority of the entire membership." RONR (12th ed.) 2:22

Edited January 23, 2021 at 10:33 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

34 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

If this is correct, then my view is yes, the notice is still valid for the regular meeting in Month 3.

I think I disagree.

"Previous notice means that notice of intent to introduce the proposal must be given at the preceding meeting (in which case the notice can be oral), or in the call of the meeting at which it is brought up" RONR (12th ed.) 44:10 (emphasis added)

There is similar language in 10:44.

Why wouldn't the meeting in month 2 count as the next meeting, even if there was no quorum? And, therefore, the notice should be given again for month 3's meeting.

[J. J.]

I agree with Dr. Kapur.  However, if an adjourned meeting was set by the inquorate meeting, notice would still be valid.

[Weldon Merritt]

1 hour ago, Atul Kapur said:

Why wouldn't the meeting in month 2 count as the next meeting, even if there was no quorum? And, therefore, the notice should be given again for month 3's meeting.

I think you mean "the preceding meeting." But to answer your question, RONR 40:9 specifies, "a notice ... cannot be validly given." So it seems that those who want to "withdraw" the rule will have to wait for meeting 3 to give notice, and meeting 4 to take the action. And hope that both meetings have a quorum.

[Shmuel Gerber]

58 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said:

I think you mean "the preceding meeting."

I don't think so. Meeting 2 is the next meeting after meeting 1; or, if you prefer, meeting 2 is the meeting which meeting 1 is the preceding meeting of.

[Weldon Merritt]

14 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't think so. Meeting 2 is the next meeting after meeting 1; or, if you prefer, meeting 2 is the meeting which meeting 1 is the preceding meeting of.

Yes; but it seemed to me that Dr. Kapur was referring to meeting 2 as being the preceding meeting at which notice for meeting 3 could be given. But either way, my main point was that valid notice cannot be given at an inquorate meeting. If I missed Dr. Kapur's point entirely, then I apologize.

[Atul Kapur]

Let me try to be clearer.

I was disagreeing with Mr. Martin's opinion that in the situation that notice was given at meeting 1 and meeting 2 was inquorate:

18 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

If this is correct, then my view is yes, the notice is still valid for the regular meeting in Month 3.

I was citing RONR as saying that notice given at meeting 1 is only valid for the next meeting, that is, meeting 2. The notice given at meeting 1 is not valid for meeting 3.

As meeting 2 was inquorate, notice could not validly be given at that meeting for meeting 3. But that does not change the fact that meeting 1 was not the preceding meeting for meeting 3, as Mr. Merritt points out. So the notice given at meeting 1 is not valid for meeting 3; the only way remaining to give valid notice for meeting 3 would be to have it sent with the call of meeting 3 (if a call is sent out).

BTW, I agree with J.J. that, notice given at meeting 1 would still be valid at an adjournment of meeting 2.

16 hours ago, J. J. said:

if an adjourned meeting was set by the inquorate meeting, notice would still be valid.

 

Edited January 24, 2021 at 05:12 PM by Atul Kapur

[Weldon Merritt]

With Dr. Kapur's clarification, I am now in agreement with him.

[Richard Brown]

It seems to me the answer depends on a determination of whether meeting number two actually took place. Guest puzzling said the meeting was “canceled“.  

If meeting #2 was called to order and then adjourned due to lack of a quorum, then I agree that the meeting took place and that the notice given at meeting one for the motion to be introduced at meeting two is not effective at any future meeting.

However, if meeting number two was never called to order and never actually took place, such as nobody showed up, it seems to me that meeting number three is in fact the next meeting since there was no meeting number two.

if that is what happened, wouldn’t meeting number three be “the next meeting“ and the notice would still be valid?

Edited to add: this is not a far-fetched scenario. I have personally seen many instances of members being notified that a meeting has been canceled and everybody accepts the notice at face value and nobody shows up. In those situations, the meeting clearly did not take place.

 

Edited January 24, 2021 at 06:01 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Shmuel Gerber]

7 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

It seems to me the answer depends on a determination of whether meeting number two actually took place. Guest puzzling said the meeting was “canceled“.  

If meeting #2 was called to order and then adjourned due to lack of a quorum, then I agree that the meeting took place and that the notice given at meeting one for the motion to be introduced at meeting two is not effective at any future meeting.

However, if meeting number two was never called to order and never actually took place, such as nobody showed up, it seems to me that meeting number three is in fact the next meeting since there was no meeting number two.

if that is what happened, wouldn’t meeting number three be “the next meeting“ and the notice would still be valid?

Edited to add: this is not a far-fetched scenario. I have personally seen many instances of members being notified that a meeting has been canceled and everybody accepts the notice at face value and nobody shows up. In those situations, the meeting clearly did not take place.

 

I don't think this makes any difference. If the regular meetings are held monthly, and notice is given at the January meeting that a certain motion would will be moved at the next meeting, that means the February meeting. It doesn't mean "the February meeting or whatever meeting we happen to hold next". And that would certainly be the case if the wording of the notice specifically mentioned "the February meeting".

Edited January 25, 2021 at 01:39 AM by Shmuel Gerber
grammar/typo

[J. J.]

I agree, but for a slightly different, though complimentary, reason.

 

12 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

I was citing RONR as saying that notice given at meeting 1 is only valid for the next meeting, that is, meeting 2. The notice given at meeting 1 is not valid for meeting 3.

As meeting 2 was inquorate, notice could not validly be given at that meeting for meeting 3. But that does not change the fact that meeting 1 was not the preceding meeting for meeting 3, as Mr. Merritt points out. So the notice given at meeting 1 is not valid for meeting 3; the only way remaining to give valid notice for meeting 3 would be to have it sent with the call of meeting 3 (if a call is sent out).

 

I feel that notice of a motion must fairly inform the members of what will be introduced at a given meeting  (implied at 10:47).  While the members were informed that something would be introduced at meeting 2, they were not informed that the motion will be introduced at meeting 3.  It is a different perspective, but it yields an identical result. 

[Richard Brown]

39 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I agree, but for a slightly different, though complimentary, reason.

 

I feel that notice of a motion must fairly inform the members of what will be introduced at a given meeting  (implied at 10:47).  While the members were informed that something would be introduced at meeting 2, they were not informed that the motion will be introduced at meeting 3.  It is a different perspective, but it yields an identical result. 

But if meeting number 2 Never takes place, say because the president sent out a notice that it was being canceled because of an approaching hurricane and no one bothered to show up, then meeting number three is actually the next meeting because  what should have been meeting number two  never took place.  Meeting number 3 *IS* “the next meeting “.  

Now, if a member at meeting number one says that “I give notice that at the February 25 Meeting I will introduce the following special rule of order”, and if the February 25 meeting gets “canceled” and never takes place, then I will agree that the notice is not valid for the next meeting which will be on March 25. 

But if the member says “I give notice that at the next meeting I will introduce the following special rule of order“ and the next meeting, which is supposed to be February 25, is canceled and never takes place because no one shows up,  then the notice is valid for the March 25 meeting assuming there have been no intervening meetings because the March 25 meeting is the next meeting. There Was no meeting on February 25.

words mean things and it all depends on exactly what the member giving notice said.
 

[Dan Honemann]

7 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

But if meeting number 2 Never takes place, say because the president sent out a notice that it was being canceled because of an approaching hurricane and no one bothered to show up, then meeting number three is actually the next meeting because  what should have been meeting number two  never took place.  Meeting number 3 *IS* “the next meeting “.  

Now, if a member at meeting number one says that “I give notice that at the February 25 Meeting I will introduce the following special rule of order”, and if the February 25 meeting gets “canceled” and never takes place, then I will agree that the notice is not valid for the next meeting which will be on March 25. 

But if the member says “I give notice that at the next meeting I will introduce the following special rule of order“ and the next meeting, which is supposed to be February 25, is canceled and never takes place because no one shows up,  then the notice is valid for the March 25 meeting assuming there have been no intervening meetings because the March 25 meeting is the next meeting. There Was no meeting on February 25.

words mean things and it all depends on exactly what the member giving notice said.
 

If what RONR defines as "previous notice" in 10:44-51 is controlling, then what RONR defines as "previous notice" is controlling.