Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Continuing breach?


Guest Puzzling

Recommended Posts

A bit a follow up question from 

If  for a main  motion on a specific subject the bylaws (or a special rule of order) prescribes previous notice. 

And a motion is adopted in breach of this rule (without previous notice) , is it a continuing breach of order? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

If  for a main  motion on a specific subject the bylaws (or a special rule of order) prescribes previous notice. 

And a motion is adopted in breach of this rule (without previous notice) , is it a continuing breach of order? 

Generally, yes.

17 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

In my opinion, no, it is not a continuing breach. The failure to give notice is not still in effect. The adopted motion is, but the rule violation began and ended when the motion was adopted. The time to raise a point of order was when it was pending at the meeting. 

A rule requiring previous notice is a rule protecting absentees, and violating a rule protecting absentees creates a continuing breach. The people who are protected by the rule aren't there to object at the time the motion is pending. :)

See RONR (12th ed.) 23:6(e), 25:10.

Specific facts might change this, such as if the rule in question provides an alternative method to adopt the motion other than previous notice (such as a higher vote threshold), or if all members of the assembly were present at the time the motion was adopted.

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thread which guest puzzling is referring to is not about giving notice. It’s not evens factor. I suspect  he is actually curious about a different thread which some might consider did involve  a notice requirement and was very thoroughly discussed. in that thread, the conclusion was that the provision at issue in that thread is not a true notice requirement in the sense contemplated by RONR for giving previous notice of a motion. 
 

 

Edited by Richard Brown
Added last seven words as indicated
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe this is a link to the actual discussion (thread) that guest puzzling is referring to. This is not a typical  notice requirement. https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/37478-bylaws-amendment/

Edited to add: for some reason this link takes you to the middle of the discussion rather than the original post. Just scroll up to the first post. I’ll try to fix it using my computer. 

Edited by Richard Brown
Typographical correction and added last paragraph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just adding to my comments on the other thread that my colleague, Mr. Brown, cited.

A rule that said, "No motion regarding ___________ shall be adopted unless the thirty days notice has been given to the members," is a rule in the nature of a rule order, even if in the bylaws.  Absent any rule on the subject in the bylaws, it may be adopted as a special rule of order.  However, even if included within the special rules of order of the society, it could not be suspended if there are absentees, because it protects absentee rights (25:10).  The violation of that rule would create a breach of a continuing nature as as it violates 23:6 e.

The specific rule in question does not create a right for absentee members.  

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...