Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Previous Notice


Caryn Ann Harlos

Recommended Posts

I am looking in RONR (12th ed.) 10:44-10:51 - and am confused on one point.

 

10:44 says that the exact content of the intended motion must be noticed and references the below paragraphs.  Only the content of giving notice at a meeting though is addressed.  If notice is not given at a meeting but in enough time in writing to be included in the call to meeting, does it have to be the exact language or is it like the notice given at a meeting described in 10:47?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I am looking in RONR (12th ed.) 10:44-10:51 - and am confused on one point.

 

10:44 says that the exact content of the intended motion must be noticed and references the below paragraphs.  Only the content of giving notice at a meeting though is addressed.  If notice is not given at a meeting but in enough time in writing to be included in the call to meeting, does it have to be the exact language or is it like the notice given at a meeting described in 10:47?

The language in 10:44 and that in 10:47 does seem a bit contradictory, but I think a reading of the two sections together, and especially 10:47, makes it plain that the exact language of the proposed motion is not necessary but that"only the purport need be indicated" per the clear language in 10:47.  It seems to me that this applies regardless of whether the notice is given verbally at the previous meeting or in writing in the call of the meeting. Section 10:47 goes on to say that "the statement of purport must be accurate and complete", as it will determine what amendments are in order when the motion is considered."

I suppose it is possible to construe 10:44 and 10:47 to mean that only the purport of the motion is necessary if notice is given verbally at the preceding meeting but that the "exact content" is necessary if the notice is given in writing, but I do not interpret those provisions that way.

It will be interesting to see what others have to say about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

I suppose it is possible to construe 10:44 and 10:47 to mean that only the purport of the motion is necessary if notice is given verbally at the preceding meeting but that the "exact content" is necessary if the notice is given in writing, but I do not interpret those provisions that way.

 

This is precisely the way I interpret it, and it never occurred to me that there was another way to interpret it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I am looking in RONR (12th ed.) 10:44-10:51 - and am confused on one point.

 

10:44 says that the exact content of the intended motion must be noticed and references the below paragraphs.  Only the content of giving notice at a meeting though is addressed.  If notice is not given at a meeting but in enough time in writing to be included in the call to meeting, does it have to be the exact language or is it like the notice given at a meeting described in 10:47?

I think this is an interesting question. My understanding had always been that only the "statement of purport" is required whether the notice is included in the call or given at a meeting. The exact text on this subject, however, does appear to call this into question. The paragraphs cited are reproduced below for reference, as well as 10:51, which addresses directly the question of a notice being sent in the call of the meeting.

"The term previous notice (or notice), as applied to necessary conditions for the adoption of certain motions, has a particular meaning in parliamentary law. A requirement of previous notice means that announcement that the motion will be introduced—indicating its exact content as described below—must be included in the call of the meeting (1:7, 9:2–5) at which the motion will be brought up, or, as a permissible alternative, if no more than a quarterly time interval (see 9:7) will have elapsed since the preceding meeting, the announcement must be made at the preceding meeting." RONR (12th ed.) 10:44

"If previous notice is given at a meeting, it can be given orally unless the rules of the organization require it to be in writing—which is often the case with notice of amendments to bylaws. Unless the rules require the full text of the motion, resolution, or bylaw amendment to be submitted in the notice, only the purport need be indicated; but such a statement of purport must be accurate and complete—as in “to raise the annual dues to $20”—since it will determine what amendments are in order when the motion is considered. The notice becomes invalid if the motion is amended beyond the scope of the notice (see also 35, 57)." RONR (12th ed.) 10:47

"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, in cases where there is a duty or established custom of issuing such a call. In such cases, 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 then does this at the expense of the society." RONR (12th ed.) 10:51

The rules on this subject do not seem to be entirely clear. It is certainly clear that, if the notice is given at a meeting, all that is required (unless the organization's rules provide otherwise) is that "only the purport need be indicated; but such a statement of purport must be accurate and complete." The comparable rule for giving notice in the call (10:51) does not state one way or the other what level of specificity is required for the notice.

So the question hinges on the meaning of the phrase "indicating its exact content as described below." On the one hand, the words "exact content" might suggest that the exact wording must be included if the notice is included in the call. On the other hand, the words "as described below" would suggest that this is discussed further in the following paragraphs, and nothing in the following paragraphs suggests that the full text is required unless the organization's rules so provide.

As a result, I am inclined to think the phrase "exact content" does not in fact mean that the full text of the motion is required, whether or not the notice is included in the call. Rather, the meaning of the phrase "exact content" as further described below appears to be that "Unless the rules require the full text of the motion, resolution, or bylaw amendment to be submitted in the notice, only the purport need be indicated; but such a statement of purport must be accurate and complete." Therefore, I would personally conclude that the full text of the motion is not required regardless of the manner in which the notice is submitted, unless the organization's rules provide otherwise.

With that said, an alternative interpretation does not seem to be unreasonable. If previous notice is given at a meeting, the exact circumstances of the parliamentary situation may mean the member is under a bit of a time crunch to ensure that the member gives timely notice, and it simply may not be practical to have the exact text of the motion prepared at that time. On the other hand, it does not seem unreasonable to require members to provide the full text when the motion is being submitted between meetings, in writing, at the member's leisure.

It should also be noted that the text refers several times to the possibility that an organization may adopt its own rules regarding previous notice, especially for such matters as amendments to the bylaws, and in such cases it is those rules which must be followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

The language in 10:44 and that in 10:47 does seem a bit contradictory, but I think a reading of the two sections together, and especially 10:47, makes it plain that the exact language of the proposed motion is not necessary but that"only the purport need be indicated" per the clear language in 10:47.  It seems to me that this applies regardless of whether the notice is given verbally at the previous meeting or in writing in the call of the meeting. Section 10:47 goes on to say that "the statement of purport must be accurate and complete", as it will determine what amendments are in order when the motion is considered."

I suppose it is possible to construe 10:44 and 10:47 to mean that only the purport of the motion is necessary if notice is given verbally at the preceding meeting but that the "exact content" is necessary if the notice is given in writing, but I do not interpret those provisions that way.

 

31 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

So the question hinges on the meaning of the phrase "indicating its exact content as described below." On the one hand, the words "exact content" might suggest that the exact wording must be included if the notice is included in the call. On the other hand, the words "as described below" would suggest that this is discussed further in the following paragraphs, and nothing in the following paragraphs suggests that the full text is required unless the organization's rules so provide.

As a result, I am inclined to think the phrase "exact content" does not in fact mean that the full text of the motion is required, whether or not the notice is included in the call. Rather, the meaning of the phrase "exact content" as further described below appears to be that "Unless the rules require the full text of the motion, resolution, or bylaw amendment to be submitted in the notice, only the purport need be indicated; but such a statement of purport must be accurate and complete." Therefore, I would personally conclude that the full text of the motion is not required regardless of the manner in which the notice is submitted, unless the organization's rules provide otherwise.

I think Messrs. Brown and Martin have this right, and I'm a bit puzzled by their expressions of uncertainty concerning it.  🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think Messrs. Brown and Martin have this right

Thank you ... that’s a relief! 

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

and  I'm a bit puzzled by their expressions of uncertainty concerning it

It’s because section 10:44 requires the “exact content“ of the proposed motion but section 10:47 provides that “only the purport need be indicated“.  I Interpret the words “exact content“ as being pretty synonymous with “exact language“, thus the apparent conflict to all five of us (except yourself) who have posted in this thread.

I do believe this is something that could be and should be clarified in the next edition. It is something I have wondered about several times prior to Ms Harlos posing her query here.  My conclusion was that requiring the exact language is probably not necessary when giving written notice, but that erring on the side of caution and doing so is the prudent thing to do whenever possible so as to avoid having to deal with a possible point of order at the next meeting when the motion is actually introduced.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

It’s because section 10:44 requires the “exact content“ of the proposed motion but section 10:47 provides that “only the purport need be indicated“.  I Interpret the words “exact content“ as being pretty synonymous with “exact language“, thus the apparent conflict to all five of us (except yourself) who have posted in this thread.

But the second sentence of 10:44 tells us that indicating the "exact content as described below" of the motion to be introduced is a necessary part of compliance with a requirement of "previous notice" regardless of which method of announcement is used. This becomes even clearer simply by shortening that sentence up a bit, as follows:

"A requirement of previous notice means that announcement that the motion will be introduced—indicating its exact content as described below—must be included in the call of the meeting at which the motion will be brought up, or it must be made at the preceding meeting." 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Just to make sure I'm clear, would it be accurate to say "—indicating its exact content as described in 10:47—" ?

This makes it even clearer that "exact content" does not equate to "exact language" as @Joshua Katz and (half of?) @J. J. had understood.

I thought the answers were the same.  I agree with the "purport" interpretation.

Notice given of a motion "to refurbish the gazebo" would include a motion "to paint the gazebo" or "to replace the floor of the gazebo."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...