Email calling meeting not sent correctly

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

You'll have to check your bylaws and policies to see if proper notice was given. Is e-mail an authorized method of notification? Is a two-day notice sufficient?

The RONR standard is the USPS but your rules may vary.

If the rules for noti"

[Guest Rob Elsman]

I have previously opined on this forum that the word "mailed" in RONR (10th ed.), p. 5, l. 3, means "sent through the postal mail", and "mailed", there, does not include electronic communications. On this basis, i.e., that th"

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

In fairness, line 3 says "mailed or distributed". So, while "mailed" might not include e-mail, "distributed" might."

[Guest Rob Elsman]

The wider range of media which "distributed" implies are appropriate for assemblies of types (1) and (2) in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 334, 335. However, "mailed" is appropriate for types (3) and (4), where the individual recipients are know"

[Guest Rob Elsman]

In three more days, I may be able to edit "are" to "is". :-)"

[Guest Margaret]

Stupid of me not to have put the bylaws in my posting...

The only two bylaws applicable are these:

"Executive meetings may be held at the discretion of the Chairperson or by request of 50% of the Executive. The purpose of executive mee"

[Guest Margaret]

I'll also note that I'm also registered on a email list for discussion of membership business. "

[Guest John M.]

>>"Notice of meetings may be given to a member by electronic mail delivered to the member’s registered electronic mail address or by facsimile delivered to the [location of member's other organization]"<<

It's up to yo"

[Guest Margaret]

It turns out that my meeting notice was sent to the webmaster address. I had recently taken over the website, however, the person who had been maintaining it is still doing the email and mailing lists. Haven't logged into it, cannot see how it could be co"

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

>>I hate to start out in this manner, but I'll regret it if I don't, right?<<

Yeah, but you're just as likely to regret it if you do.

See p.244 (e) and p.255."

[Guest Gary c Tesser]

I suggest that Margaret look at Official Interpretation 2006-6, "DENIAL OF MEMBER'S RIGHT TO VOTE" (at www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_6 - they're not shouting, they're just joyous - in general, not about denial of a member's right"

[Guest Trina]

This (Mr. Tesser's advice to peruse OI 2006-6) sounds very apropos to me. I had not read 2006-6 before (and wish to thank GcT for pointing it out here) - it certainly seems to hit the nail on the head.

From a political or inter-personal p.o.v., I"

[Guest Trina]

On reading 2006-6 again, I think I'm changing my opinion on its applicability to the situation.

Although the intro to 2006-6 lists various member rights which cannot be suspended, including the right to attend meetings, the question and answer po"

[Guest Margaret]

Just for the sake of argument, I'm not sure how applicable 2006-6 is to this situation:

"The denial of Member A's right to vote will render the vote taken on motion X null and void only if there is a possibility that member A's vote might have af"

[Guest Nancy N.]

I am nonplussed, but since Margaret is moving on, I suppose perforce I shall have to."

[Guest JDStackpole]

And just to add a bit of real world experience, many orgs (that I'm familiar with) require a member to opt-in to get e-mail, thus placing the responsibility for receipt of e-mail more or less on the member. At least by opting-in he agree to recognize and "

[Guest Margaret]

I am nonplussed, but since Margaret is moving on, I suppose perforce I shall have to."

Nancy, what is it that you are nonplussed by?

[hmtcastle]

Nancy, what is it that you are nonplussed by?

These "imported messages" are leftovers from the previous incarnation of this forum. It would be best to let them rest in peace.

Actually, it would be best if they weren't here at all but that remains to be seen.

At the very least, replies should be blocked.