Convention Notice and Follow-up Information

[smb]

An organization's bylaws require notice of the convention to be sent to all delegates 45 days prior to the session.  The notice provides the date, time, location, and general statement of the business to be conducted.  [E.g., election of officers, resolutions, amendments to bylaws, etc.].  The bylaws then require "a more detailed packet containing
proposed resolutions, nomination and election information, and other relevant meeting materials" to be sent "no less than 30 days prior to the meeting."   The notice of meeting was timely sent 50 days out.  However, because of a necessary correction to the nomination and election information, the detailed packet was sent out a day late.

Clearly the meeting itself is proper, but there could be a problem with the resolutions if the requirement for the detailed packet is interpreted as a requirement for prior notice of motions.  [There are no bylaw amendments.]. Would adoption of a resolution with the deficient notice be OK provided none of the registered delegates object or would delegates who were elected by their constituent units but who did not attend the convention be considered 'absentees' for purposes of RONR section 23:6(e)?  And if 23:6(e) applies, since that simply allows an untimely point of order to be raised later how and when would an objecting absent delegate raise the issue?

Thx

[J. J.]

I think that creates a notice requirement, and, absent a bylaw provision, I would opine that a point of order could be raised at the next convention, if the resolution would have continuing effect. 

[Rob Elsman]

The proper answer depends entirely on the interpretation of the bylaw--whether "a more detailed packet containing
proposed resolutions, nomination and election information, and other relevant meeting materials" constitutes a requirement for previous notice.  Any of the delegates may raise a Point of Order when any of the items of business included in the bylaw comes before the convention, and the chair will have the duty to rule on the point, if he is able to form an opinion, or he can place the question directly before the convention for its judgment.

[J. J.]

I would say that bylaw requirement for previous notice need not include the terms "previous" or "notice," as can be seen in the example of 56:67.  Saying that something that will come before the assembly is required to be sent out some days in advance constitutes notice within 26:6 (e).

[Rob Elsman]

On 4/4/2024 at 8:30 AM, J. J. said:

Saying that something that will come before the assembly is required to be sent out some days in advance constitutes notice within 26:6 (e).

I would hesitate to be so definite.  I am not in a position to know what was the intent of the adopters of the bylaw, and I am not sufficiently a textualist to be willing to divine the proper interpretation without that additional information.

[J. J.]

On 4/4/2024 at 9:38 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I would hesitate to be so definite.  I am not in a position to know what was the intent of the adopters of the bylaw, and I am not sufficiently a textualist to be willing to divine the proper interpretation without that additional information.

Once you say that in your bylaws, and there nothing contradictory, it is notice.  We have that in the example.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/3/2024 at 7:23 PM, smb said:

Would adoption of a resolution with the deficient notice be OK provided none of the registered delegates object or would delegates who were elected by their constituent units but who did not attend the convention be considered 'absentees' for purposes of RONR section 23:6(e)?

To the extent that the detailed packet is interpreted to be in the nature of a notice requirement (and I am in agreement with Mr. Elsman that there is ambiguity on this point), because the notice in question is sent in advance of the convention to all delegates, I am inclined to think that in these circumstances, delegates who were elected by their constituent units but who did not attend the convention are considered "absentees" for purposes of RONR 23:6(e). As a result, the rule in question may not be suspended unless 1.) all registered delegates are present, or 2.) the organization's bylaws provide for the rule's suspension.

If the detailed packet is not interpreted to be in the nature of a notice requirement, but is sent solely as a courtesy to delegates, then this is a non-issue.

In making a determination on this matter, it would likely be desirable to view the organization's rules concerning resolutions.

On 4/3/2024 at 7:23 PM, smb said:

And if 23:6(e) applies, since that simply allows an untimely point of order to be raised later how and when would an objecting absent delegate raise the issue?

I don't think a Point of Order could be raised until the next convention - assuming the matter in question remains a continuing breach at the time of the next convention.

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/4/2024 at 5:01 PM, Josh Martin said:

I don't think a Point of Order could be raised until the next convention - assuming the matter in question remains a continuing breach at the time of the next convention.

Why can't a point of order be raised when one of these resolutions is offered at the convention?

[Josh Martin]

On 4/4/2024 at 5:20 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Why can't a point of order be raised when one of these resolutions is offered at the convention?

Certainly a Point of Order can (and should) be raised when one of these resolutions is offered at the convention, but the question the OP asked was how an absent delegate would object.