Notice and General Orders

[pwilson]

“When notice has been given of a bylaw amendment, it becomes a general order for the meeting at which it is to be considered” (RONR [10th ed.], p. 578, l. 8-10).

1. Why isn’t this way of making an item a general order included in the list on p. 354?

2. If notice has been given of an item other than a bylaw amendment, does that item also become a general order?

3. Can notice be given of motions that don’t require notice at all, in addition to motions that require notice for a specified voting basis (e.g., Rescind, Adopt Special Rules of Order)? It is clear that notice can be given of a bylaw amendment that doesn’t require notice (p. 576, l. 23-24).

4. Does it matter for the subsequent order of business whether an individual or a committee (other than a bylaws revision committee) gives notice of a motion? E.g., can a committee in its report at one meeting give notice of a motion it intends to make in its report at the next meeting (under committee reports rather than general orders)?

[George Mervosh]

1) I don't know, but it's never struck me as strange.

2) No. Maybe that answers question #1

3) Absolutely.

4) Yes. Even though the passage on p. 578 says it's a general order, I see no rule saying it can't come up under the bylaw committee report if they were the ones who gave the notice, in fact, I'd say that's typical, normal and proper.

[Rob Elsman]

1) I don't know, but it's never struck me as strange.

2) No. Maybe that answers question #1

3) Absolutely.

4) Yes. Even though the passage on p. 578 says it's a general order, I see no rule saying it can't come up under the bylaw committee report if they were the ones who gave the notice, in fact, I'd say that's typical, normal and proper.

I have p. 578 circled in my book, which means I suspect there will be a clarification in the next edition. As I recall from previous mentions on this forum, this is a hangover from the days when amendments to the bylaws were required to be submitted in writing. Now that this is no longer the case in the general law, the purpose for the rule has disappeared, though the rule has not. So, stand by, and let's see if something has been done about this.

[pwilson]

1. Thanks for clarifying the history of the rule on p. 578. I might add that the index entry “Previous Notice, of motions . . . makes motion a general order” (pp. 688-89) is a bit confusing in its generality.

2. Do noticed items (other than bylaw amendments) therefore come up under new business, despite the fact that new business generally involves “matters initiated in the present meeting” (p. 25, l. 18-19)?

3. If notice can be given when it’s not required, does giving such notice entitle a member to the same privileges as giving notice in general, i.e., priority in recognition, ability if necessary to interrupt pending business or to interrupt another member who has been assigned the floor but has not begun to speak, or the right to speak after the assembly has voted to adjourn? The passages on p. 372, l. 21-22 and p. 231, l. 3-6 restrict these last two privileges to notice of motions requiring notice.

4. I may be missing something about committees that give notice of motions they intend to include in a future report. The rule on p. 578 about noticed bylaw amendments becoming general orders seems to apply explicitly to notice given by bylaw committees, which are mentioned two sentences before the rule (p. 578, l. 3-5).

[Josh Martin]

2. Do noticed items (other than bylaw amendments) therefore come up under new business, despite the fact that new business generally involves “matters initiated in the present meeting” (p. 25, l. 18-19)?

Yes. The matter is still "initiated in the present meeting," as it has not yet been moved.

3. If notice can be given when it’s not required, does giving such notice entitle a member to the same privileges as giving notice in general, i.e., priority in recognition, ability if necessary to interrupt pending business or to interrupt another member who has been assigned the floor but has not begun to speak, or the right to speak after the assembly has voted to adjourn? The passages on p. 372, l. 21-22 and p. 231, l. 3-6 restrict these last two privileges to notice of motions requiring notice.

I believe that the same privileges would apply equally to motions where notice is required for a lower voting threshold, such as the motion to rescind, but a member could not take advantage of these privileges by giving notice for a motion which requires no notice at all, such as an ordinary main motion.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

... a bit confusing in its generality.

... priority in recognition

... I may be missing something

Here is my hunch on what you are "missing."

"To give notice" is NOT the same thing as "making a motion."

"A motion is a formal proposal by a member, in a meeting, that the assembly take certain action." [RONR page 26]

To give notice, all you need to utter is (a.) purport; (b.) scope. [RONR page 116-117]

That is, you are under no obligation to state the full text of the motion itself.

The term previous notice (or notice), as applied to neces-

sary conditions for the adoption of certain motions, has a

particular meaning in parliamentary law. A requirement of

previous notice means that announcement that the motion

will be introduced--indicating its exact content as described

below--must be included in the call of the meeting (p. 5) at

which the motion will be brought up, or, as a permissible al-

ternative, if no more than a quarterly time interval (see p. 88)

will have elapsed since the preceding meeting, the announce-

ment must be made at the preceding meeting.

[...]

Unless the rules require the full text of the motion,

resolution, or bylaw amendment to be submitted in the no-

tice, only the purport need be indicated; but such a statement

of purport must be accurate and complete--as in “to raise

the annual dues to $20”--since it will determine what

amendments are in order when the motion is considered.

The notice becomes invalid if the motion is amended beyond

the scope of the notice.

So, what happens?

The chair only has the purport and the scope of the previous notice.

The chair has NO motion to state.

No one has made a motion.

No one knows what the text of the motion is, yet.

So the chair cannot do much of anything but WAIT for a member to take advantage of the previous notice, and AWAIT a member to make an honest-to-goodness main motion.

***

I think THAT is why you cannot make heads or tails of how one thing (notice) turns into another thing (a general order).

Or I could be all wet.

[Dan Honemann]

Here is my hunch on what you are "missing."

"To give notice" is NOT the same thing as "making a motion."

"A motion is a formal proposal by a member, in a meeting, that the assembly take certain action." [RONR page 26]

To give notice, all you need to utter is (a.) purport; (b.) scope. [RONR page 116-117]

That is, you are under no obligation to state the full text of the motion itself.

So, what happens?

The chair only has the purport and the scope of the previous notice.

The chair has NO motion to state.

No one has made a motion.

No one knows what the text of the motion is, yet.

So the chair cannot do much of anything but WAIT for a member to take advantage of the previous notice, and AWAIT a member to make an honest-to-goodness main motion.

***

I think THAT is why you cannot make heads or tails of how one thing (notice) turns into another thing (a general order).

Or I could be all wet.

This post could be understood as implying that general orders must be motions, which is indeed all wet.

[pwilson]

Thanks for the helpful responses. I understand the distinction among the concepts of notice, motions, and orders of the day but should have clarified the differences in my earlier posts.

The heart of my question concerns where in the order of business an item for which notice has been given may be brought before the assembly in the form of a motion.

I take it that a committee report may include a motion for which notice has been given (presumably by the same committee in its previous report) and that under new business a member may make a motion for which he or another member has given previous notice.

My original concern stemmed from the passage I first quoted, about notice of a bylaw amendment making that amendment a general order (p. 578, l. 8-10), which seems to be the only case in which notice automatically creates a general order (even if the notice was given by a committee).

[George Mervosh]

My original concern stemmed from the passage I first quoted, about notice of a bylaw amendment making that amendment a general order (p. 578, l. 8-10), which seems to be the only case in which notice automatically creates a general order (even if the notice was given by a committee).

But I don't think the rule mandates it fall under that class of business at the next meeting, which is what Rob and I are jawing about.

Let's say a bylaw amendment is to add term limits was noticed....Joe gets elected President again for the fourth time (and we know elections typically will fall under Special Orders). Do you really want to have Joe elected and then later in the meeting have a 2-year term limit amendment pass and Joe's out the door?

Again, I just don't think it's mandatory, or practical.

Edit - And I wouldn't mind Dan's opinion on of it is mandatory that it fall under the general orders class of business.....

[Dan Honemann]

If the proposal to amend the bylaws is a committee proposal, then the motion can and should be made at the time when the committee makes its report.

If the proposal is from a member, then it can be made when the time for consideration of general orders has been reached in the order of business (thus giving it some priority over other items of new business).

In either case, the proposal can be advanced for earlier consideration by a suspension of the rules.

[George Mervosh]

If the proposal to amend the bylaws is a committee proposal, then the motion can and should be made at the time when the committee makes its report.

If the proposal is from a member, then it can be made when the time for consideration of general orders has been reached in the order of business (thus giving it some priority over other items of new business). It can be advanced for earlier consideration by a suspension of the rules.

Perfectly clear, thanks.