handling or declining a invite to what i think improper meeting.

[rynait]

Hello, 

even though I already suspect the nature of this notice and invite pertains to which I am not willing to do. 

the problem. 

an email notice sent out (to members and board and representatives) saying this...   president calling emergency meeting April 8th, 2023 at 3:35pm  notice sent out by email    4/9/2023 9:47 PM.  meeting will be zoom meeting to begin on Monday April 10th, @ 7:00p  (all  times listed from that single email)  In that same notice states meeting shall be closed meeting.   little thing stated in same notice "The meeting will be recorded, the minutes will be shared with the public at the next meeting." (sic)

bylaws states emergency meeting notice has to be sent out 36 hours in advance.  and no where says anything about closed in that bylaws.   but there is a bylaws clause that I need clarification whether interpretatively is allowing e-meeting or not?

cut and paste

6. Electronic Vote
a) The Officers may use video conferencing and/or meetings via email (as called
e Vote) as long as the requirements are met. Any decision/approval must be
recorded for the next meeting minutes by the Secretary.

end cut paste. 

Now in another email president sent me the code to access the zoom meeting and invited seven officers, one member, and myself but left out 6 representatives (representatives has right and voting power in all type of meetings). 

The nature that I suspected; has to do what I am doing,  this organization is working with with Another organization [call this AOO] for strategic purposes with a project.

AOO posted on their website, saying meeting is open to everyone; published their agenda and date time of next meeting [aka April 11],  and listed AOO contact phone number. This is the number I called inquiring whether AOO's Board Of Directors meeting is open to public, and whether I can obtain a copy of AOO bylaws.  I even requested interpreter and they [AOO] told me all is set-up.  And yes I am still going to attend the AOO's meeting.

President's emails prior to invite and notice email, was trying to order me to stop.  then force me to go through another member [chairperson of that project] regarding other organization.  I told him I am attending as public and did not utilize original organization name in the correspondence with the other organization. He repeated second time.  

So  I am not going into the wolf den and let them debase me.   even though I know my rights as public.  My problem and question.   

I wanted to reply in email; NO  this is not proper to have a closed meeting and you must attend the general meeting; April 29th.   

I realize this reply might be ignored due to fact not yet a meeting to raise point of order and appeal.

What is right thing to tell all participants (in the invite) email and I want to pre-protect myself.

Roy 

 

Edited April 10, 2023 at 05:43 AM by rynait
email text be consistent for easy reading

[Josh Martin]

On 4/10/2023 at 12:20 AM, rynait said:

president calling emergency meeting April 8th, 2023 at 3:35pm  notice sent out by email    4/9/2023 9:47 PM.  meeting will be zoom meeting to begin on Monday April 10th, @ 7:00p  (all  times listed from that single email)

On 4/10/2023 at 12:20 AM, rynait said:

bylaws states emergency meeting notice has to be sent out 36 hours in advance.

First, it seems implied that the meeting in question is a board meeting, but this is never explicitly stated. My responses assume this is a board meeting. If this is not correct, please clarify.

I'm not entirely clear from the facts presented whether the notice was sent on April 8 at 3:35 PM or on April 9 at 9:47 PM (or perhaps at some other time). This is an important difference, because the latter case is fewer than 36 hours before the meeting. If the bylaws provide that notice for an emergency meeting must be sent 36 hours in advance, then notice for an emergency meeting to be held on April 10 at 7 PM would need to be sent no later than April 9 at 7 AM. Further, notice must be sent to all members of the board.

On 4/10/2023 at 12:20 AM, rynait said:

and no where says anything about closed in that bylaws.

Closed meetings are permissible under RONR. The board, by majority vote, can choose to hold a closed meeting, unless some rule in the organization's rules or applicable law provides otherwise. See RONR (12th ed.) 9:24-27.

To be clear, however, a "closed meeting" means that the meeting is closed to persons who are not members of the assembly in question. All members of the board have a right to be notified and attend.

On 4/10/2023 at 12:20 AM, rynait said:

but there is a bylaws clause that I need clarification whether interpretatively is allowing e-meeting or not?

cut and paste

6. Electronic Vote
a) The Officers may use video conferencing and/or meetings via email (as called e Vote) as long as the requirements are met. Any decision/approval must be recorded for the next meeting minutes by the Secretary.

While it is ultimately up to the organization to interpret its own rules, it seems to me that e-meetings via Zoom are permissible. The rule specifically provides "The Officers may use video conferencing and/or meetings via email... as long as the requirements are met." Zoom is a video conferencing platform.

On 4/10/2023 at 12:20 AM, rynait said:

Now in another email president sent me the code to access the zoom meeting and invited seven officers, one member, and myself but left out 6 representatives (representatives has right and voting power in all type of meetings). 

If these representatives are members of the board, then they have a right to be notified of and attend all meetings of the board.

If they are not members of the board, then they may be excluded if the board wishes, unless the organization's rules or applicable law provide otherwise.

On 4/10/2023 at 12:20 AM, rynait said:

I wanted to reply in email; NO  this is not proper to have a closed meeting and you must attend the general meeting; April 29th.   

I agree in part and disagree in part. The board is entirely free to have a closed meeting if it wishes to do so, unless the organization's rules or applicable law provide otherwise. Notice of the meeting, however, must be sent to all members of the board, and must be sent the required amount of time in advance, as specified in your bylaws.

I somewhat unclear on what the general meeting on April 29 has to do with any of this, but certainly any officers with duties in connection with that meeting should attend.

[rynait]

On 4/10/2023 at 6:17 AM, Josh Martin said:

First, it seems implied that the meeting in question is a board meeting, but this is never explicitly stated. My responses assume this is a board meeting. If this is not correct, please clarify.

bylaws states there are three types of meetings;  annual meeting [march],  general meeting [body=members can move, second and debate, only board vote -- 14 votes],  emergency meeting.   bylaws states notice sent to all member.  that is listed members  aka 250 people.    representative has the vote power in general meeting.  Quorum in emergency meeting also includes representatives. 

On 4/10/2023 at 6:17 AM, Josh Martin said:

Closed meetings are permissible under RONR. The board, by majority vote, can choose to hold a closed meeting, unless some rule in the organization's rules or applicable law provides otherwise. See RONR (12th ed.) 9:24-27.

To be clear, however, a "closed meeting" means that the meeting is closed to persons who are not members of the assembly in question. All members of the board have a right to be notified and attend.

that is a catch 22.   bold.  requires one to have a prior meeting to setup a meeting.  however a representative texted to me late last night (she is upset),  only got the notice [she is privately aware of president obstruction email(s)], and has sent email pestering president where is the invite.  She wanted me to call her in the morning.   Apparently she was not asked beforehand to "choose to hold a closed meeting".    

On 4/10/2023 at 6:17 AM, Josh Martin said:

I somewhat unclear on what the general meeting on April 29 has to do with any of this, but certainly any officers with duties in connection with that meeting should attend.

first of all the emergency nature of the meeting; I feel is inappropriate.  clearly an wolf den abuse.  second they can wait until April 29th which is a scheduled general meeting;  we [members] still waiting on Notice sent out for that April 29th meeting which has been affixed in prior general-annual meeting. 

 

So what is the suggested reply to the invite email?

another question.  could the invite make motion second debate and vote in closed meeting?

Roy

PS I am not participating in their closed meeting, because of AOO. 

Edited April 10, 2023 at 04:26 PM by rynait

[Josh Martin]

On 4/10/2023 at 11:25 AM, rynait said:

bylaws states there are three types of meetings;  annual meeting [march],  general meeting [body=members can move, second and debate, only board vote -- 14 votes],  emergency meeting.   bylaws states notice sent to all member.  that is listed members  aka 250 people.    representative has the vote power in general meeting.  Quorum in emergency meeting also includes representatives. 

Okay, my assumption was apparently incorrect. Thank you for your response, but this just raises more questions. Let's back up.

• What assembly, exactly, is meeting for this "emergency meeting?" The board? The membership? Something else entirely?
• Who are the members of this "emergency meeting?" By "members" I mean people who have all of the rights of membership, including the right to vote.
• Do the bylaws require that notice of this meeting be sent to persons who are not full members of the meeting, including to persons who are not actually full "members" of the assembly, as noted above?
• Do the bylaws require that this meeting be open to persons who are not members of the meeting?

It would likely be helpful if you can provide exact quotations of the rules to answer these questions.

Since your organization seems to have its own customized rules on this matter, I think it is best to ignore my previous response, and I will attempt to provide a revised response when I have additional facts.

On 4/10/2023 at 11:25 AM, rynait said:

that is a catch 22.   bold.  requires one to have a prior meeting to setup a meeting.  however a representative texted to me late last night (she is upset),  only got the notice [she is privately aware of president obstruction email(s)], and has sent email pestering president where is the invite.  She wanted me to call her in the morning.   Apparently she was not asked beforehand to "choose to hold a closed meeting".    

No, this is not correct. The decision would not be made in advance of the meeting. It would be made at the meeting itself.

But your organization seems to have some customized rules on this matter, so I am less confident in my previous response.

On 4/10/2023 at 11:25 AM, rynait said:

first of all the emergency nature of the meeting; I feel is inappropriate.  clearly an wolf den abuse.  second they can wait until April 29th which is a scheduled general meeting;  we [members] still waiting on Notice sent out for that April 29th meeting which has been affixed in prior general-annual meeting. 

Whether this can wait until April 29 or not is for the organization to decide. That is not a parliamentary issue and I express no view on that matter.

On 4/10/2023 at 11:25 AM, rynait said:

So what is the suggested reply to the invite email?

I don't know, and I doubt I will know even when I have all the facts straight (assuming I can get them all straight). You are presumably more knowledgeable of the political situation in your organization than I am and will have a better idea of what to write concerning this matter. I will try to help with the rules questions and you can take it from there.

On 4/10/2023 at 11:25 AM, rynait said:

could the invite make motion second debate and vote in closed meeting?

Persons who are members of the assembly that is meeting can make motions, second motions, speak in debate, and vote in a closed meeting.

Edited April 10, 2023 at 08:00 PM by Josh Martin

[rynait]

On 4/10/2023 at 1:58 PM, Josh Martin said:

What assembly, exactly, is meeting for this "emergency meeting?" The board? The membership? Something else entirely?

bylaws is bit vague on the body in related to emergency meeting.  however membership is defined as a group with conditions  aka deaf, hard of hearing, etc,  resides in new mexico and older than 18.  also indicates does not have vote with exception of annual meeting. 

 

On 4/10/2023 at 1:58 PM, Josh Martin said:

Who are the members of this "emergency meeting?" By "members" I mean people who have all of the rights of membership, including the right to vote.

 I re-read emergency meeting and the general meeting bylaw clause(s) and noted difference: emergency meeting is silent on the rights to move, second and debate. the vote limitation is in the membership section.   So therefore the answer to your question of All rights... the council.

 

On 4/10/2023 at 1:58 PM, Josh Martin said:

Do the bylaws require that notice of this meeting be sent to persons who are not full members of the meeting, including to persons who are not actually full "members" of the assembly, as noted above?

in bylaws states  meeting notice is  sent to all members.  that is members and council.  

 

On 4/10/2023 at 1:58 PM, Josh Martin said:

Do the bylaws require that this meeting be open to persons who are not members of the meeting?

such clause is not located.  traditionally is open to all. 

I assumed during the meeting  the member has to rise and call previliged motion to enter executive session.   In this organization past, council is the body entering the session even though members can call for that session.  also assumed has to declare who invited into the session.   

I believe starting an executive session outside of the meeting,  or "planning" to setup the executive meeting is improper; this due to my interpretation need to publicly announce the decision to enter such session.     

This yesterday notice sounded like  planning to set up the closed meeting.  not granting opportunity for members to call that or include invites. 

 

below is cut and paste copied from section in the bylaws.

CHAPTER 4 - THE COUNCIL (GENERAL MEETING)
1. The Council is the group of the elected Board of Officers and Representatives.
2. There shall be at least six (6) general meetings per year. Announcing the calendar of
meetings for the year is the President's responsibility.
3. A meeting of the Council shall have a quorum of at least five (5) officers, not including
representatives.
4. Members are encouraged to attend meetings. Members may motion, second and discuss
during general meetings but may not vote.
5. Announcement of the regular meetings shall be sent out to members at least two weeks
before the general meeting by the Secretary.
6. At the Annual Meeting, members are allowed to vote on the amendments to the
Bylaws. Annual Meeting shall be announced at least 30 days in advance. The Annual
Meeting includes elections which all members can vote. The Annual Meeting takes place
in March.
7. All members of the council shall have and use email to maintain current information.
Social Media such as Facebook is encouraged but not required as information are also
shared.

CHAPTER 5 - EMERGENCY MEETING

1. Emergency meeting may be called by the President or by a simple majority of the Council.
2. Notification of the emergency meeting shall be sent out to members at least thirty-six
hours (36 hours) (1.5 days) in advance.
3. The caller of the emergency meeting shall be recorded in the minutes.
4. The meeting shall have a quorum of at least seven (7) of the Council with at least four (4)
Officers in attendance.

Edited April 10, 2023 at 10:17 PM by rynait
adding section copy of the bylaws. and further reading... corrections made

[rynait]

On 4/10/2023 at 1:58 PM, Josh Martin said:

Persons who are members of the assembly that is meeting can make motions, second motions, speak in debate, and vote in a closed meeting.

does that mean invited do not have the right to motion, second, debate and vote during the executive session?

[Joshua Katz]

Yes.

[rynait]

On 4/10/2023 at 1:58 PM, Josh Martin said:

On 4/10/2023 at 10:25 AM, rynait said:

So what is the suggested reply to the invite email?

I don't know, and I doubt I will know even when I have all the facts straight (assuming I can get them all straight). You are presumably more knowledgeable of the political situation in your organization than I am and will have a better idea of what to write concerning this matter. I will try to help with the rules questions and you can take it from there.

I am still not attending that zoom meeting.   

Should I reply email  replying the invite [zoom] meeting?

No,  I decline the invite to an illegal meeting due to following,  notice is too young; less than 36 hours, and this modified meeting need to comply with RONR 9:24-27.  Due to nature of the modification, I feel this meeting is obstructing other members to participate; therefore should be ruled out of order. 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/10/2023 at 3:53 PM, rynait said:

So therefore the answer to your question of All rights... the council.

Okay. So this is a meeting of the council. Based on the additional citations from the bylaws you have provided, it appears the council consists of "the elected Board of Officers and Representatives." Therefore, those persons are "members" of the council in the parliamentary sense and have all rights associated with membership in the council, which means:

• Notice must be sent to all members of the council, which includes each of the officers and representatives.
• At the meeting, the members of the council, which is the officers and representatives, have the right to speak, make and second motions, and vote.

Any other persons have no rights in connection with this meeting, except to the extent the bylaws or applicable law provide otherwise. Outside of that, any degree of participation by other persons, including the right to attend, is at the discretion of the council.

Your bylaws have some... unusual provisions in that they apparently extend fairly extensive rights to persons who are not members of the council - indeed, essentially all rights except the right to vote. Frankly, the organization may wish to reconsider whether that's a good idea, but in the interim, the council is obliged to follow those rules. Even to the extent the organization wishes to keep these rules, it would be advisable to amend them for clarity, and provide something like "Members of the society" rather than the generic "members."

"4. Members are encouraged to attend meetings. Members may motion, second and discuss during general meetings but may not vote.

5. Announcement of the regular meetings shall be sent out to members at least two weeks before the general meeting by the Secretary."

However, the rules in question appear only in the section on "general meetings" of the council, not in the section on "emergency meetings" of the council. In addition, both rules specifically state "general meetings." So I am inclined to think these rules are not applicable to emergency meetings.

On 4/10/2023 at 3:53 PM, rynait said:

in bylaws states  meeting notice is  sent to all members.  that is members and council.  

Are you certain about this? I see no such rule in the section on emergency meetings.

On 4/10/2023 at 3:53 PM, rynait said:

I assumed during the meeting  the member has to rise and call previliged motion to enter executive session. 

This is essentially correct, although depending on the circumstances, it may not require a privileged motion.

On 4/10/2023 at 5:19 PM, rynait said:

does that mean invited do not have the right to motion, second, debate and vote during the executive session?

As noted above, persons who are members of the council (officers and representatives) have the right to make and second motions, speak in debate, and vote. Persons who are not members of the council do not have such rights, except to the extent your rules provide otherwise.

On 4/10/2023 at 7:15 PM, rynait said:

No,  I decline the invite to an illegal meeting due to following,  notice is too young; less than 36 hours, and this modified meeting need to comply with RONR 9:24-27.  Due to nature of the modification, I feel this meeting is obstructing other members to participate; therefore should be ruled out of order. 

Whether you accept or decline the invite is up to you. With respect to the rules, it is certainly correct that if the notice was sent fewer than 36 hours before the meeting, then the meeting is null and void on that grounds alone.

I am not entirely certain whether it is correct that persons who are not members of the council need to be notified or permitted to participate in this meeting.

[rynait]

On 4/10/2023 at 6:29 PM, Josh Martin said:

I am not entirely certain whether it is correct that persons who are not members of the council need to be notified or permitted to participate in this meeting.

this is in reference to the emergency meeting. which states in chapter 5.2 of the bylaws. included in the cut and paste above.  so members still has the right to participate.  what is not clear and probable that the other rights such as motion, second, debate is not granted to members in the emergency meeting.

On 4/10/2023 at 6:29 PM, Josh Martin said:

On 4/10/2023 at 6:15 PM, rynait said:

No,  I decline the invite to an illegal meeting due to following,  notice is too young; less than 36 hours, and this modified meeting need to comply with RONR 9:24-27.  Due to nature of the modification, I feel this meeting is obstructing other members to participate; therefore should be ruled out of order. 

Whether you accept or decline the invite is up to you. With respect to the rules, it is certainly correct that if the notice was sent fewer than 36 hours before the meeting, then the meeting is null and void on that grounds alone.

remove the portion about modified meeting to comply with RONR 9:24-27?    rephrase  into this

 

No,  I decline the invite to an illegal meeting due to following, notice is too young; less than 36 hours,  and eventhough this is a modified meeting, looks like obstructing other members to participate in the emergency meeting.  Therefore should be ruled out of order.

 

Edited April 11, 2023 at 12:42 AM by rynait

[Josh Martin]

On 4/10/2023 at 7:35 PM, rynait said:

this is in reference to the emergency meeting. which states in chapter 5.2 of the bylaws. included in the cut and paste above.  since you think is also general meeting.  so members still has the right to participate anyway. 

To the extent that "members" in this context means all members of the society (which I suppose it probably does, since the organization appears to use the term with that meaning in the section on general meetings), then yes, I suppose the bylaws require that notice of the emergency meeting be sent to all members of the society.

I am still not persuaded that this means all members of the society have a right to "participate" in emergency meetings. The rule pertaining to "members" speaking in debate, making motions, etc. appears only in the section on general meetings.

[rynait]

 

On 4/10/2023 at 6:46 PM, Josh Martin said:

I am still not persuaded that this means all members of the society have a right to "participate" in emergency meetings. The rule pertaining to "members" speaking in debate, making motions, etc. appears only in the section on general meetings.

Ah I understand your interpretation.  My interpretation is presence in that emergency meeting.  does my corrected response stand reasonable?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/10/2023 at 8:15 PM, rynait said:

I am still not attending that zoom meeting.   

Should I reply email  replying the invite [zoom] meeting?

No,  I decline the invite to an illegal meeting due to following,  notice is too young; less than 36 hours, and this modified meeting need to comply with RONR 9:24-27.  Due to nature of the modification, I feel this meeting is obstructing other members to participate; therefore should be ruled out of order. 

Well, you can't raise a point of order that it should be ruled out of order unless you attend it.

[rynait]

newer developments and need advice. 

I replied to their email with a modification sent to the officers listed on the invite email at 6:50 pm; copying in blue and italics

No,  I decline the invite to an illegal meeting due to following, notice is too young; less than 36 hours,  and even though this is a modified meeting, looks like obstructing other members' ability to be present in the emergency meeting.  Therefore should be ruled out of order.

 

now today that emergency dash closed meeting... two things happened.  a friend of mine called me at 7:03 asking me to attend the meeting (she tried to "use begging" psychology on me) and repeated answering her,  NO [thrice]. But revealing she go ahead and attend the meeting (invited person and meeting is in progress).  Also somebody on board probably read my email and did some sort of the point of order, resulting in this public postponement.

President announced via new notice (sent 8:21 today) that someone said the meeting is not meeting 36 hours requirement and "postponed" the meet to April 11th, at 7 pm, with reference to April 9th notice, thus complying with 36 hours.  I did reply in private email;  this is not how notice work.    suggested to count time/days backward from the picked meeting date/time then send notice before that time/day cutoff.  stated "can not do notice to notice hopping".

the organization then sent out second "updated" notice which (mirroring the 1st notice) but added closed meeting.   that 2nd notice is sent April 10th at 9:08 pm. 

I had been aware of and been told in past this was president's habit of cancelling and rescheduling thinking the notice count goes to the "first one".  example:  we will have meeting on February 14th, notice sent out January 20th.  closing in to February meeting. an email sent out on February 13th saying meeting is cancelled and rescheduled to February 16th.  people have raised not 14 days notice.  president say yes  is from January 20th. 

Is there  better way to explain this notice rule to president or to the body?  

Edited April 11, 2023 at 07:06 AM by rynait
finger counting error in example

[Josh Martin]

On 4/10/2023 at 7:49 PM, rynait said:

Ah I understand your interpretation.  My interpretation is presence in that emergency meeting.  does my corrected response stand reasonable?

Strictly speaking, the rule relating to emergency meetings refers only to notice. But it may well be reasonable to interpret this as also permitting members of the society to attend, since otherwise I'm not certain what the purpose of the notice is.

On 4/11/2023 at 1:49 AM, rynait said:

President announced via new notice (sent 8:21 today) that someone said the meeting is not meeting 36 hours requirement and "postponed" the meet to April 11th, at 7 pm, with reference to April 9th notice, thus complying with 36 hours.  I did reply in private email;  this is not how notice work.    suggested to count time/days backward from the picked meeting date/time then send notice before that time/day cutoff.  stated "can not do notice to notice hopping".

the organization then sent out second "updated" notice which (mirroring the 1st notice) but added closed meeting.   that 2nd notice is sent April 10th at 9:08 pm. 

Is there  better way to explain this notice rule to president or to the body?  

I concur with your interpretation. The notice given on April 9th was for a meeting to be held on April 10. This provides no notice of a meeting to be held on April 11, so "postponing" the meeting to April 11 does nothing to improve the notice situation. The notice for the April 11 meeting was also sent fewer than 36 hours in advance.

The notice of a special meeting, as explained in RONR (12th ed.) 9:13, must include the "time, place, and purpose of the meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up." As a result, a notice which includes an incorrect time and date is not a valid notice for the meeting.

In order to validly hold an emergency meeting, notice of that meeting (not just notice of any meeting), for that date, time, and location, must be sent at least 36 hours in advance of the meeting.

All of this is because the purpose of a notice is to fairly inform members of a meeting so that they can make arrangements to attend the meeting if they wish to do so. The notice is useless for this purpose unless it includes all of the items noted above. That notice must also be sent a reasonable time in advance, which is defined in your bylaws as 36 hours.

If the organization wishes to permit special meetings to be called with even less notice than 36 hours (which is already a very brief notice period), then the bylaws would need to be amended to provide as much.

On 4/11/2023 at 1:49 AM, rynait said:

I had been aware of and been told in past this was president's habit of cancelling and rescheduling thinking the notice count goes to the "first one".  example:  we will have meeting on February 14th, notice sent out January 20th.  closing in to February meeting. an email sent out on February 13th saying meeting is cancelled and rescheduled to February 16th.  people have raised not 14 days notice.  president say yes  is from January 20th. 

I concur that this is improper, but in that situation there actually is something the organization could have done to achieve the same result. When proper notice has been given of a meeting, the assembly may, when the meeting occurs, choose to adjourn the meeting to a later date and time. Notice of the adjourned meeting is not required (although it is often advisable). The meeting cannot, however, be rescheduled prior to the meeting occurring.

This is not an option in the present situation, because proper notice has not been given of the special meeting.

Edited April 11, 2023 at 11:10 AM by Josh Martin

[rynait]

On 4/11/2023 at 5:05 AM, Josh Martin said:

The notice of a special meeting, as explained in RONR (12th ed.) 9:13, must include the "time, place, and purpose of the meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up." As a result, a notice which includes an incorrect time and date is not a valid notice for the meeting.

In order to validly hold an emergency meeting, notice of that meeting (not just notice of any meeting), for that date, time, and location, must be sent at least 36 hours in advance of the meeting.

Uh oh.  I went back to the first "notice" connected to postponement and April 11th, and second notice connected to update and closed meeting and April 11th. neither notice specifies subject matter;  with president's stupid finger counting system, only the "less than 36h" April 9th notice states "discuss some matters that have come up".  unfortunately there's the reaction.. what matter, name the matter... 

so my response would be [blue]

NO,  Again I am declining the invite to illegal meeting due to two following; the meeting is too young, less than 36 hours; and both April 11th meeting's notice does not satisfy Robert Rules of Order Newly Revised Chapter 9, section 13.  Notice gives appearance in obstructing other members' ability to be present in the emergency meeting. 

Edited April 11, 2023 at 04:29 PM by rynait
identifying which 3 notices and adjust adding on my reply

[Josh Martin]

On 4/11/2023 at 11:09 AM, rynait said:

Uh oh.  I went back to the first "notice" connected to postponement and April 11th, and second notice connected to update and closed meeting and April 11th. neither notice specifies subject matter;  with president's stupid finger counting system, only the "less than 36h" April 9th notice states "discuss some matters that have come up".  unfortunately there's the reaction.. what matter, name the matter... 

"Some matters that have come up" is not sufficient notice of the subject matter of the meeting.

[rynait]

president found this and stated...  (his word in blue & red)

To reinforce the validity of this evening’s meeting, I found this in the book of robert’s rules of order:

photo of an text;  in larger font.  he circled (in red) around a block of text.

dealt with attorneys before.)

The reason it depends is

because different groups use

different levels of procedure.

While it can sometimes be

more complicated, the gen-

eral rule is that larger groups use

more formal procedures,

while smaller groups use

less-formal procedures.

These levels of formality

make sense. For instance,

I serve as parliamentarian

at several conventions that

meet with thousands of

delegates attending each year.

In an effort to be fair,

 

 Is that statement in RONR?  

copying bylaws ..

CHAPTER 9 - ROBERT'S RULE OF ORDER

1. Any parliamentary procedures not covered in the Bylaws and/or absence of a governing
document covering specific processes shall be resolved by referring to a current edition of
Robert's Rules of Order.

I believe his statement is more of handling motion, second, debate, closing debate, determining validity of motions, vote process, glossing over a few steps.  Does this cover the "RULES" listed in RONR such as 9:13, etc?

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/11/2023 at 7:41 PM, rynait said:

president found this and stated...  (his word in blue & red)

To reinforce the validity of this evening’s meeting, I found this in the book of robert’s rules of order:

photo of an text;  in larger font.  he circled (in red) around a block of text.

dealt with attorneys before.)

The reason it depends is

because different groups use

different levels of procedure.

While it can sometimes be

more complicated, the gen-

eral rule is that larger groups use

more formal procedures,

while smaller groups use

less-formal procedures.

These levels of formality

make sense. For instance,

I serve as parliamentarian

at several conventions that

meet with thousands of

delegates attending each year.

In an effort to be fair,

 

 Is that statement in RONR?  

copying bylaws ..

CHAPTER 9 - ROBERT'S RULE OF ORDER

1. Any parliamentary procedures not covered in the Bylaws and/or absence of a governing
document covering specific processes shall be resolved by referring to a current edition of
Robert's Rules of Order.

I believe his statement is more of handling motion, second, debate, closing debate, determining validity of motions, vote process, glossing over a few steps.  Does this cover the "RULES" listed in RONR such as 9:13, etc?

 

No that text is not from Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 12th edition.

It's quite obvious from the statement: 

I serve as parliamentarian at several conventions that meet with thousands of delegates attending each year.

Clearly a first-person description of what some parliamentarian has done would not appear in the actual book. It is an opinion that someone wrote about the book.

What it says, though is generally true.  In smaller groups less formal rules are often possible.  But some people have used that general principle as an excuse to ignore the rules.  That's not the same thing as less formal rules.  Even when using what RONR refers to as "small board rules" there are still rules, and nobody is given authoritarian powers.

Edited April 11, 2023 at 11:56 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Josh Martin]

On 4/11/2023 at 6:41 PM, rynait said:

The reason it depends is because different groups use different levels of procedure. While it can sometimes be more complicated, the general rule is that larger groups use more formal procedures, while smaller groups use less formal procedures. These levels of formality make sense. For instance, I serve as parliamentarian at several conventions that meet with thousands of delegates attending each year.

Is that statement in RONR?  

This exact statement is not found in RONR, but similar sentiments can be found in RONR (12th ed.) 49:21.

But this has nothing to do with the issues discussed in this thread, for at least two reasons:

• While it is correct that certain rules are less formal in committees and small boards, the rules discussed here, such as the requirement that proper notice be given of meetings, are the same regardless of the size or type of assembly.
• The issues raised here have to do not only with rules found in RONR, but actually have more to do with rules in your organization's own bylaws, and those rules specifically refer to the assembly in question.

It looks like the President actually got his quote from an article by professional parliamentarian Jim Slaughter. If you read the article, you'll see that Mr. Slaughter discusses in detail the sorts of "less formal procedures" he's talking about. This is a reference to specific rules which are different for small boards, not a blank check for the President to do whatever he feels like.

On 4/11/2023 at 6:41 PM, rynait said:

I believe his statement is more of handling motion, second, debate, closing debate, determining validity of motions, vote process, glossing over a few steps.  Does this cover the "RULES" listed in RONR such as 9:13, etc?

I think 49:21 has a better summary of the less formal procedures for committees and small boards.