Required notice of bylaws amendment

[QuiksilverHg]

In a recent Town Hall at our church (which follows RRO per the bylaws) I proposed that our church adopt a bylaws amendment. Immediately following the meeting I provided the chair, and our two Pastors with a signed written request that they send the 30-days prior written notice to the members to consider a bylaws amendment at the next available regular business meeting.

The Pastors and the chair oppose this bylaws change. They conferred in secret between themselves and three like-minded deacons and decided that based on their reading of the bylaws they wanted to impose additional requirements before sending out notice.

I could not find it explicitly stated in Robert's, but am I correct in believing that once a written request has been made to a chair to bring a motion, that it is his responsibility to dispose of it in some manner; and that it follows that if notice is necessary to call the motion that it falls on him to ensure such notice is given?

There is nothing in our bylaws stating how notice will be provided (except that for bylaws amendments it will be 30-days prior by postal mail). Therefore, if the chair continues to refuse to send notice, is there any reason that I can't sit down in the office and stuff envelopes myself to send out notice to the members?

I'm guessing there is probably a policy against interpreting bylaws in this forum, but if not I would be happy to share the relevant portions of our bylaws here for context.

[J. J.]

You bylaws may require additional steps.  It may be implied.

We'd have to see the bylaws regarding this, and it would be helpful to know the pastors', et al., reasoning. 

[Atul Kapur]

It sounds like you were trying to provide notice according to the provisions of 10:51

Quote

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.

The alternative is to give the notice orally at one meeting and the item is considered at the next meeting. See 10:47 - 10:49.

On 8/19/2023 at 10:01 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

guessing there is probably a policy against interpreting bylaws in this forum

There apparently was such a policy, a long time ago on a server far,far away. The current rule is that the excerpts must be exact quotes of the bylaws.

[Josh Martin]

On 8/19/2023 at 9:01 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

The Pastors and the chair oppose this bylaws change. They conferred in secret between themselves and three like-minded deacons and decided that based on their reading of the bylaws they wanted to impose additional requirements before sending out notice.

Could you elaborate on this? What is the disagreement over "requirements" of the notice concerning and what do the bylaws say on this matter?

On 8/19/2023 at 9:01 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

I could not find it explicitly stated in Robert's, but am I correct in believing that once a written request has been made to a chair to bring a motion, that it is his responsibility to dispose of it in some manner; and that it follows that if notice is necessary to call the motion that it falls on him to ensure such notice is given?

Sending notice is actually the responsibility of the Secretary, unless your rules provide otherwise. Otherwise, however, I believe that this understanding is correct, assuming the proposed notice is compliant with the society's rules. It seems there may be some dispute on that point.

"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

"Duties of the secretary. The duties of the secretary are: ...

9) To send out to the membership any required notice of each meeting, known as the call of the meeting, and to conduct the general correspondence of the organization—that is, correspondence that is not a function proper to other offices or to committees (see also Corresponding Secretary and Executive Secretary, below)." RONR (12th ed.) 47:33

On 8/19/2023 at 9:01 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

There is nothing in our bylaws stating how notice will be provided (except that for bylaws amendments it will be 30-days prior by postal mail). Therefore, if the chair continues to refuse to send notice, is there any reason that I can't sit down in the office and stuff envelopes myself to send out notice to the members?

I have not seen exactly what your bylaws say concerning this matter. For starters, I think there are some parliamentary and practical concerns with this. The rules in RONR assume that notice is given by the Secretary, or at least by some officer or other person authorized to speak on behalf of the society. Members may (rightly) question whether a notice provided by an individual member is valid. Further, the bylaws may specifically require that notice be sent by a particular person, which would then certainly rule out this possibility. There is also the practical consideration, of course, of whether you have contact information for all of the members. If not, that will make it somewhat difficult to send out notice.

In addition to the concerns regarding the notice itself, I notice you refer to yourself sitting "down in the office and stuff[ing] envelopes myself to send out notice to the members." Forgive me if I am misinterpreting, but this sounds like you are suggesting you would be using the society's resources (office space, envelopes, stamps) to send the notice. I am not certain what your role is in the society and whether you have authorization to use the society's resources in this manner. So that is also something to consider.

Edited August 20, 2023 at 02:54 PM by Josh Martin

[QuiksilverHg]

Thank-you to everyone for the replies so far. I am happy to include the relevant sections of the bylaws for consideration. Also of note, Josh Martin alluded to a secretarial position; our church has an elected Clerk position, but not a secretary. I will include the description of the clerk for reference.

My position in the church is only as a church member, I am not a deacon or a member of any committee. All members have full membership rights at business meetings.

The position of the Pastors and their like-minded deacons is that sending notice of a bylaws amendment requires meeting the steps for a special meeting. My position is that in 7.3, though the wording is a little backwards, it is stated that the "following business" can be acted on at a special meeting (as in 7.4) OR at a regular monthly business meeting provided notice as specified is given... since a special meeting is not required, I should not be required to meet the burdens of a special meeting before sending out notice.

Their position is that even though the bylaws say that it can be done at a monthly business meeting... that since it is one of the listed business items requiring notice, that I am required to meet the requirements of the special meeting by either presenting written request from 50 members of the church, or bringing it to the voting deacons (note the chair already presented it to the deacons along with presenting their bylaws interpretation as a fact that is not under dispute).

I did ask, "If truly your concern is only with bylaws compliance, and you aren't trying to add any obstacles to the church voting then even under your own interpretation, you (a pastor) could call a special meeting on your own authority." He refused...as did the deacon-chair in a later conversation

I also found an additional section in RONR that I believe would apply in this case... in section 57:14 it states that "...When the bylaws do not place a limitation on those who can give notice of a bylaw amendment, any member is entitled to do so..." It later states that the society is responsible for any of the costs of sending this notice (Mr. Martin alluded to concern over me using the society's resources above)

 

So first I am interested to hear anyone's opinion as to how well my or the pastors' positions align with the bylaws. I am aware that any opinion here would not be binding on our society and that I will have to solve this with a bylaws interpretation request to our church at the next business meeting; but I would welcome the input to assist me in framing my argument as that is my next step.

The deacon-chair brought my proposed amendment to the deacons against my expressed wishes, and did not inform me of its inclusion in that meeting, or afford me any chance to speak. In RONR if my motion is brought to a committee of this same society when I am not a member of that committee, should I still be able to assert my right to speak first in debate of my motion? (there are no rules in the bylaws in the affirmative or negative about non-members attending committee meetings, but the senior pastor does regular attend committees he is not a member of, and he has no more delineated right to do so in the bylaws than any other member)

Next, am I correct in stating that I fully have the right to send notice myself as a member of this society if the pastors continue to refuse to send notice (ref: RONR 57:14)?

Perhaps most importantly I would welcome any advice in bringing this bylaws interpretation question at the next meeting. Do I present as a motion to interpret the bylaws such that no special requirements exist prior to sending notice? Do I raise it as a point of order against a continuing violation (as in 23:6)? Or is there another method prescribed for answering a bylaws interpretation question?

Lastly, can anyone offer any advice on how I call attention to the {I believe} egregious behavior in: trying to arbitrate the bylaws in secret; excluding me from meetings regarding my motion; and misrepresenting the bylaws to the deacons while not sharing that their interpretation is in dispute; without opening myself to reprimanded by the chair for attacking another member? 

Thank-you to all for your input.

 

Section 3.5. Church Clerk. The church clerk shall: prepare and keep a full and complete record of all proceedings of the church; maintain a list of all members; write all letters directed by the church; maintain the charter and bylaws as then in effect; maintain a list of all church committees, their respective memberships and purpose statements, if any; and authenticate church records, when necessary. The church clerk shall be elected to a one-year term by the congregation upon nomination by the nominating committee. The church clerk may be reelected to successive terms.

SECTION 7
Meetings

Section 7.3. Monthly Business Meetings. A regular monthly business meeting of the membership shall be held on the Wednesday following the third Sunday in each month (unless notice otherwise is given), at which time all officers and committees may report. Such meetings shall be held at the place and time of the regularly-scheduled worship service for such evening (unless notice otherwise is given). Any and all business can be raised, discussed and acted upon at a regular monthly business meeting, except for the following business, which can only be acted upon at a special meeting pursuant to Section 7.4, or at a regular monthly business meeting provided notice as specified in Section 7.11 is given that the proposed business shall be considered at the monthly business meeting specified in the notice: the hiring, firing, or compensation changes regarding any of the church ministerial staff (pastor and other ministers); the sale, lease, mortgage, or other encumbrance or disposition of any church property; the borrowing of money by the church; any non-budgeted, non-emergency expenditure exceeding $10,000.00; consideration of or amendment of the annual budget; disciplinary action against any member; and the amendment of the charter or bylaws. The deacon chair or his or her designee shall preside at all business meetings.

Section 7.4. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the membership may be called by the pastor, deacon chair, the voting deacons, or upon the written request of fifty (50) members to the church clerk and deacon chair. At such meetings no business shall be transacted except the business mentioned in the notice calling the meeting, and any business incident to such business. The deacon chair or his or her designee shall preside at all special meetings. Notice of all special meetings shall be given pursuant to Section 7.11 below.

 

Section 7.11. Notice. Except in the case of a charter or bylaw amendment (notice of which is governed by Section 9.1 below), whenever notice of a special meeting or of any other matter is required to be given to the membership, such notice must be given no less than one (1) week prior to such meeting and may be given: in person; by telephone; by mail; by electronic media; by publication sent to the membership on a periodic basis; or by announcement at, or inclusion in the bulletins for, all worship services of the church for no less than one (1) week prior to such meeting. Any notice given under this Section must specify or summarize the proposed action to be considered at such meeting.

 

SECTION 9
Amendment
Section 9.1. Amendment. These bylaws, as well as the charter of the church, may be amended by the membership only (not by the voting deacons) upon the approval by two-thirds of the votes cast at a meeting of the members. Notice of the proposed bylaw or charter amendment must be given in writing by mail at least thirty (30) days prior to the meeting at which the proposed amendment is to be considered.

[Gary Novosielski]

Here's one citation that might be of interest:

9:16 The requirement that business transacted at a special
meeting be specified in the call should not be confused with a
requirement that previous notice of a motion be given.
Although the call of a special meeting must state the purpose
of the meeting, it need not give the exact content of individual
motions that will be considered. When a main motion related to
business specified in the call of a special meeting is pending, it
is as fully open to germane amendment as if it had been
moved at a regular meeting.

Conversely, the requirement for previous notice of a motion should not be confused with any of the requirements of a special meeting.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/20/2023 at 11:58 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

Next, am I correct in stating that I fully have the right to send notice myself as a member of this society if the pastors continue to refuse to send notice (ref: RONR 57:14)?

You might want to send the request to the Clerk, as it should have been originally, along with this citation:

10:51 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 [i.e., clerk]
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.

I can't find a citation that says you can send the notice yourself, but by analogy to the right of a member to stand and state a motion in his place, when the chair refuses to properly acknowledge the motion, I would think that if the Clerk refuses, you might as well give it a try.  Since notice is required, it has to be accomplished somehow.

On 8/20/2023 at 11:58 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

In RONR if my motion is brought to a committee of this same society when I am not a member of that committee, should I still be able to assert my right to speak first in debate of my motion?

No, your right to speak first only applies after you have made the motion in a body of which you are a member.

On 8/20/2023 at 11:58 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

Perhaps most importantly I would welcome any advice in bringing this bylaws interpretation question at the next meeting. Do I present as a motion to interpret the bylaws such that no special requirements exist prior to sending notice? Do I raise it as a point of order against a continuing violation (as in 23:6)? Or is there another method prescribed for answering a bylaws interpretation question?

You should familiarize yourself with Point of Order [RONR (12th ed.) §23], and Appeal [§24].  That's how bylaws get interpreted. There is no motion to interpret.  You go ahead and do the thing you believe you have a right to do, and wait for the chair to rule against you.    

You (obtaining the floor) : "Having given previous notice, I move the adoption of this amendment to the bylaws, a copy of which I now hand to the Clerk"  

Chair: "That motion is out of order because the deacons have some lame excuse."

You: "I appeal from the decision of the chair!"

Your friend:  "Second!"

This usually requires a good deal of ground work in advance.  Just showing up at a meeting, moving the amendment, getting ruled out of order, and appealing, without any allies knowing what you're up to might not even get a second to the appeal, and you're dead in the water.  You need to have a plan of action and as many supporters as you can round up.

[Atul Kapur]

On 8/20/2023 at 11:58 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

So first I am interested to hear anyone's opinion as to how well my or the pastors' positions align with the bylaws.

Your bylaws specifically state (in 7.3) that bylaws amendments may be considered at a regular monthly meeting if notice is given as specified. So I see nothing that supports the pastors' position.

On 8/20/2023 at 11:58 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

In RONR if my motion is brought to a committee of this same society when I am not a member of that committee, should I still be able to assert my right to speak first in debate of my motion?

No, not at all. You are not a member of the committee so you don't even have the right to attend the committee meeting and, if you do attend the meeting you have no right to participate in the meeting at all, much less have the right to speak first.

On 8/20/2023 at 11:58 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

I would welcome any advice in bringing this bylaws interpretation question at the next meeting.

You could verbally give notice of your motion and request that the clerk be directed to send written notice as required by Bylaws Article 9.1. If (when) that request is rejected, then you can raise a point of order. If the point is found to be "not well taken," then appeal. Be prepared before the meeting to have someone second your appeal. Also note that you can, as the deacons appear to have done, discuss this with other members before the meeting to recruit allies to your position.

I am not inclined to follow Mr. Novosielski's specific proposal because, no matter what you have done and tried to have sent out, notice has not been sent as required by Article 9.1 so it would not be appropriate to consider the bylaws amendment at that meeting. I do, however, agree with his strategy which is similar to what I said in the previous paragraph

On 8/21/2023 at 12:41 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

This usually requires a good deal of ground work in advance.  Just showing up at a meeting, moving the amendment, getting ruled out of order, and appealing, without any allies knowing what you're up to might not even get a second to the appeal, and you're dead in the water.  You need to have a plan of action and as many supporters as you can round up.

 

[Josh Martin]

On 8/20/2023 at 10:58 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

The position of the Pastors and their like-minded deacons is that sending notice of a bylaws amendment requires meeting the steps for a special meeting.

Well, this position is clearly wrong. A bylaw amendment certainly may be considered at a special meeting, but it may also be considered at a regular meeting.

The relevant rules in the bylaws for providing notice of a bylaw amendment are as follows:

"Section 9.1. Amendment. These bylaws, as well as the charter of the church, may be amended by the membership only (not by the voting deacons) upon the approval by two-thirds of the votes cast at a meeting of the members. Notice of the proposed bylaw or charter amendment must be given in writing by mail at least thirty (30) days prior to the meeting at which the proposed amendment is to be considered."

On 8/20/2023 at 10:58 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

The position of the Pastors and their like-minded deacons is that sending notice of a bylaws amendment requires meeting the steps for a special meeting. My position is that in 7.3, though the wording is a little backwards, it is stated that the "following business" can be acted on at a special meeting (as in 7.4) OR at a regular monthly business meeting provided notice as specified is given... since a special meeting is not required, I should not be required to meet the burdens of a special meeting before sending out notice.

I agree.

On 8/20/2023 at 10:58 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

I also found an additional section in RONR that I believe would apply in this case... in section 57:14 it states that "...When the bylaws do not place a limitation on those who can give notice of a bylaw amendment, any member is entitled to do so..." It later states that the society is responsible for any of the costs of sending this notice (Mr. Martin alluded to concern over me using the society's resources above)

I agree.

On 8/20/2023 at 10:58 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

So first I am interested to hear anyone's opinion as to how well my or the pastors' positions align with the bylaws. I am aware that any opinion here would not be binding on our society and that I will have to solve this with a bylaws interpretation request to our church at the next business meeting; but I would welcome the input to assist me in framing my argument as that is my next step.

Assuming that what has been posted is all of the relevant rules in the bylaws on this matter, I think you are clearly in the right here. I see no basis for the claim that giving notice of a bylaw amendment requires the same procedures as calling a special meeting.

On 8/20/2023 at 10:58 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

The deacon-chair brought my proposed amendment to the deacons against my expressed wishes, and did not inform me of its inclusion in that meeting, or afford me any chance to speak. In RONR if my motion is brought to a committee of this same society when I am not a member of that committee, should I still be able to assert my right to speak first in debate of my motion?

No. If you are not a member of the Board of Deacons, you have no right to speak at (or even attend) such a meeting, even if the board is discussing its position on a motion you proposed.

On 8/20/2023 at 10:58 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

(there are no rules in the bylaws in the affirmative or negative about non-members attending committee meetings, but the senior pastor does regular attend committees he is not a member of, and he has no more delineated right to do so in the bylaws than any other member)

The board is free to permit persons who are not members of the board to attend its meetings, and this does not need to be applied uniformly. The board is free to permit some persons to attend and not others. It is not unusual to permit senior staff to attend.

On 8/20/2023 at 10:58 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

I also found an additional section in RONR that I believe would apply in this case... in section 57:14 it states that "...When the bylaws do not place a limitation on those who can give notice of a bylaw amendment, any member is entitled to do so..." It later states that the society is responsible for any of the costs of sending this notice (Mr. Martin alluded to concern over me using the society's resources above)

It's correct that 57:14 provides that any member has a right to give notice of a bylaw amendment and that the society is responsible for paying the costs. But it is the Secretary (or Clerk, in your case) who actually sends notices. Further, the reference to costs, in my view, clearly refers to authorized persons in the society using the society's resources and paying the costs. What is said in 57:14 does not, in my view, authorize an individual member to send notice, let alone authorize an individual member to commandeer the society's resources for this purpose.

One might argue that, in the face of continued resistance from the officers, you had no choice but to send the notice yourself, even although that's not how it's supposed to work. Ultimately, the membership would decide whether this constitutes a valid notice.

I truly do not find much, however, to persuade me that it is a reasonable interpretation that an individual member becomes authorized to directly use the society's resources. I think you would be on much firmer ground sending the notice yourself and requesting reimbursement from the society. I believe you would open yourself up to considerable risk by attempting to use the society's resources yourself.

Do you have contact information for every member of the society? If not, then this debate becomes irrelevant, as it would then be impossible for you to send notice.

On 8/20/2023 at 10:58 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

Perhaps most importantly I would welcome any advice in bringing this bylaws interpretation question at the next meeting. Do I present as a motion to interpret the bylaws such that no special requirements exist prior to sending notice? Do I raise it as a point of order against a continuing violation (as in 23:6)? Or is there another method prescribed for answering a bylaws interpretation question?

I can think of two ways on how to proceed, depending on how exactly you wish to go about it.

• You could, as you suggest, send the notice yourself. At the meeting, you could then move the amendment, pursuant to the notice. If the chair rules the motion out of order on the grounds that valid notice has not been given, you could move to appeal.
• You could instead make a motion instructing the Clerk to send the notice for the bylaw amendment. If the chair rules the motion out of order on the grounds that the requirements for sending the notice have not been met, you could move to appeal.

You would not simply "make a motion to interpret the bylaws." Additionally, I don't think a Point of Order is appropriate in this case. That is generally not the tool for a violation which arises outside of the context of a meeting.

Another option for how to proceed might be to simply find 49 supporters for your bylaw amendment and have them join you in signing a written request to consider the amendment. While I understand and agree with your argument that this should not be required, it may well be that this will be easier than trying to fight this one out, and you'll need supporters for your amendment eventually anyway for it to have a chance of being adopted.

On 8/20/2023 at 10:58 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

Lastly, can anyone offer any advice on how I call attention to the {I believe} egregious behavior in: trying to arbitrate the bylaws in secret; excluding me from meetings regarding my motion; and misrepresenting the bylaws to the deacons while not sharing that their interpretation is in dispute; without opening myself to reprimanded by the chair for attacking another member?

If you wish to pursue formal disciplinary action against the individuals in question, check your bylaws for those procedures or, if they are silent, see Ch. XX of RONR for the appropriate procedures to follow.

If you do not intend to pursue formal disciplinary action, then don't say any of what you just said, or you will indeed be opening yourself to reprimand for attacking another member. Instead, simply just state the facts as you understand them, without accusing anyone of "egregious" behavior or "misrepresenting" anything.

• You attempted to give notice of an amendment to the bylaws.
• You were informed that this requires the same procedures as for calling a special meeting and that, as a result, the bylaws were not sent.
• The deacons discussed this matter and chose not to invite you to that meeting. (As I have noted, this does not actually violate any parliamentary rule. But this is still what happened, and the membership may still not approve of it.)

These are all simply the facts and does not ascribe motivations to members or accuse members of anything inappropriate.

On 8/20/2023 at 11:41 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

You should familiarize yourself with Point of Order [RONR (12th ed.) §23], and Appeal [§24].  That's how bylaws get interpreted. There is no motion to interpret.  You go ahead and do the thing you believe you have a right to do, and wait for the chair to rule against you.    

You (obtaining the floor) : "Having given previous notice, I move the adoption of this amendment to the bylaws, a copy of which I now hand to the Clerk"  

Chair: "That motion is out of order because the deacons have some lame excuse."

You: "I appeal from the decision of the chair!"

Your friend:  "Second!"

This usually requires a good deal of ground work in advance.  Just showing up at a meeting, moving the amendment, getting ruled out of order, and appealing, without any allies knowing what you're up to might not even get a second to the appeal, and you're dead in the water.  You need to have a plan of action and as many supporters as you can round up.

Mr. Novosielski, for clarity, are you suggesting the member do this after the OP first sends out the notice himself? I don't see any basis for this appeal otherwise.

Edited August 21, 2023 at 11:23 AM by Josh Martin

[QuiksilverHg]

Thank-you to everyone for your replies so far. The comments have generally aligned with my understanding, including that I thought I was unlikely to be able to claim first-speakership at a committee I am not a member of.

I would however like to circle back to 57:14, part of which states, “When the bylaws do not place a limitation on those who can give notice of a bylaw amendment, any member is entitled to do so.” It also states, “The society is responsible for paying the cost of sending such notice, not the member proposing the amendment.”

While I agree that our clerk is roughly equivalent to a secretary as recognized by RONR and that our bylaws seem to imply that [she] normally send out notice, there is nothing in the bylaws explicitly placing a limit on who may send out notice, so why would I not be entitled to use church resources to do so?

 

Based on what I am reading here and in RONR, my current plan will be to at the end of the business meeting, when there is normally a call for new business, gain the floor and say, “I would like to serve notice to those present for consideration of a bylaws amendment to add the following “xxxxxx” at the October Business Meeting. I request that our church clerk send out written notice to the members as required by our bylaws.” Based on my readings of chapter 10:44 forward, I do not believe I can elaborate at that time.

If the chair declares my notice out of order, I can appeal (which my wife can second, or I could probably find any number of other people). I give the chair the first right to speak after which point I can give the entire history of how I tried to bring this up at a town hall, the Pastor’s and select deacons held a secret meeting, came up with their own interpretation of the bylaws (despite no authority to do so), refused to send notice, and presented an, I believe, incomplete picture of the bylaws to the deacons.

I do not believe that I am directly impugning anyone’s reputation with those statements (though I realize I am having to walk a careful line, and welcome any input on better ways to phrase things). I would then go on to say that if the staff continues to refuse to send notice, I am authorized to send notice to myself based on RONR 57:14 (and read the specific line I quoted above).

Thank-you again for any input and advice.

[Atul Kapur]

On 8/21/2023 at 3:01 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

there is nothing in the bylaws explicitly placing a limit on who may send out notice, so why would I not be entitled to use church resources to do so?

Because there is a difference between giving notice and sending that notice out to the general membership. You, as an individual member, have the right to give notice under 57:14, which you do verbally at the meeting. It is up to the organisation to send that notice to all the members, not you. Nothing in 57:14 gives you the right to commandeer the resources of the organization.

[Josh Martin]

On 8/21/2023 at 2:01 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

While I agree that our clerk is roughly equivalent to a secretary as recognized by RONR and that our bylaws seem to imply that [she] normally send out notice, there is nothing in the bylaws explicitly placing a limit on who may send out notice, so why would I not be entitled to use church resources to do so?

I think you perhaps have an argument that, under these circumstances, you had no choice but to send the notice yourself, particularly if the officers continue to refuse. That will ultimately be up to the society to decide. But I strongly disagree with this notion that anything in your bylaws or RONR authorizes you, as an individual member, to commandeer the organization's resources, even if you are doing so for the purpose of carrying out a requirement under the organization's rules.

On 8/21/2023 at 2:01 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

Based on what I am reading here and in RONR, my current plan will be to at the end of the business meeting, when there is normally a call for new business, gain the floor and say, “I would like to serve notice to those present for consideration of a bylaws amendment to add the following “xxxxxx” at the October Business Meeting. I request that our church clerk send out written notice to the members as required by our bylaws.”

I think this is a good idea, but I would follow it up with a motion to instruct or direct the clerk to send the notice.

On 8/21/2023 at 2:01 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

I give the chair the first right to speak after which point I can give the entire history of how I tried to bring this up at a town hall, the Pastor’s and select deacons held a secret meeting, came up with their own interpretation of the bylaws (despite no authority to do so), refused to send notice, and presented an, I believe, incomplete picture of the bylaws to the deacons.

I would tone down some of this language a bit.

And frankly, I also just don't think most of this information is relevant to the question of interpreting the bylaws.

On 8/21/2023 at 2:01 PM, QuiksilverHg said:

I do not believe that I am directly impugning anyone’s reputation with those statements (though I realize I am having to walk a careful line, and welcome any input on better ways to phrase things). I would then go on to say that if the staff continues to refuse to send notice, I am authorized to send notice to myself based on RONR 57:14 (and read the specific line I quoted above).

As previously noted, I would simply state the following:

• You attempted to give notice of an amendment to the bylaws.
• You were informed that this requires the same procedures as for calling a special meeting and that, as a result, the notice was not sent.
• The deacons discussed this matter and chose not to invite you to that meeting.

That feels like sufficient background to me. And then give your arguments as to why you feel that, in your view, the notice is valid under the bylaws. The question before the assembly isn't about the actions of the board members, it's about the correct interpretation of the bylaws.

On 8/21/2023 at 3:34 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Because there is a difference between giving notice and sending that notice out to the general membership. You, as an individual member, have the right to give notice under 57:14, which you do verbally at the meeting. It is up to the organisation to send that notice to all the members, not you. Nothing in 57:14 gives you the right to commandeer the resources of the organization.

I concur with this, although I would add that notice may also be given by sending the notice to the Secretary. Certainly, however, also giving it orally (so the member has witnesses that the notice was given) seems prudent in the circumstances.

Edited August 21, 2023 at 11:50 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/21/2023 at 7:14 AM, Josh Martin said:

Mr. Novosielski, for clarity, are you suggesting the member do this after the OP first sends out the notice himself? I don't see any basis for this appeal otherwise.

Yes, although unless time is of the essence, the most foolproof method of providing previous notice at this point would seem to be doing so during a meeting.