Correspondence Letters
Noah Casanova
All of the correspondence in the Arnold Schoenberg Collection of Correspondence has also been scanned and made searchable through an online database maintained by the Arnold Schoenberg Center in Vienna.
Some of Webern's correspondence has been transcribed, annotated, and published. The following titles offer a representative sample and link to fuller bibliographic information in the Library of Congress Online Catalog. Links to additional online content are included when available.
I am on a NonProfit Board where letters from members or regional branches are included in the Board pack for discussion as 'Inwards Correspondence' at each meeting (if there are any). We have recently made some decisions that a few Board members are against and are whipping up support from members to write in and complain about the decisions. These are hostile letters and when read, discussed and responded to as 'Outwards Correspondence' we then receive further letters back. Individuals do not accept the decision of the Board and don't take 'No' as an answer, so keep up this beligerant stance. I would like some advice on how to handle this correctly in Roberts Rules which our ByLaws have adopted.
1. Am I able to not accept the letters as 'Inwards Correspondence' in the first place as the matter is 'closed', but then I will be accused of blocking freedom of speech and access to the governing body (a dictator in other words)? By acknowledging and accepting them for Board consideration they will then appear in full in the Board Agenda pack.
2. Can I move that the 'Inwards Correspondence' not be accepted when we rech this Agenda item? (at this stage the printed letters appear in the board pack for all board members to read and of course they will then want a say on them but we then regurgitate the same old ground)
3. Should I move that we Lay the correspondecne on the Table or Postpone Indefinitely and hope that they don't get picked up? Of course in this option, I would probably have to write to the original letter writer saying what happened to their letter and they will write back with another argumentative letter arguing against whatever was said and so we are back at square one again.
This is wasting a huge amount of Board time and is going nowhere. The Board decisions have already been passed correctly and minuted and so we should not have to deal with saboteurs. Any advice/help appreciated as I can't find anything in RR on this type of scenario. Thank you.
Does this bit about correspondence being read, included in your "agenda pack," and responded to, appear somewhere in your rules, or in an applicable law? There are no such rules in RONR. So if it doesn't, it is a custom. Either way, you can eliminate this practice by changing your rules (unless there is an applicable law).
It certainly seems to me that, regardless of the source, this is at least a custom, and so you cannot unilaterally make decisions of this sort. The answer is almost certainly not going to be content-based restrictions. And do check your laws.
This is an inappropriate use of law on the table, both because there is no motion being laid, and because you are trying to use it to kill the reading. Similarly, there is nothing to postpone, as reading a letter is not a motion.
Overall, my impression is that your organization either has or is subject to (likely the latter) a rule to promote democratic values like transparency, and is finding that inconvenient, both because excess transparency just is inconvenient, and because the rule in question is not optimally designed. The correct answer will be a combination of modifying the rule, not making content-based decisions to modify its effect, and living with the messiness that serves these values.
I have no idea what is an "agenda pack". Ordinarily, communications from superior authorities that are of interest to the assembly--especially those that require action--are read by the secretary as part of the secretary's report; or, they may be read by the presiding officer from the chair if they are especially important.
You get correspondence, and it is read at a meeting. This is common in many societies, where the Corresponding Secretary reads or distributes inbound mail. Expressing a disagreement is not tantamount to sabotage. It is not required by any rule that such letters be discussed, voted upon, or replied to. Inbound letters are not motions In fact, except for the fact that they seem to be, by rule or custom, required to be read or distributed, you have no duty to deal with them further in any way. In fact, unless someone is prepared to make an actual motion as a result of some argument in a letter, discussion is not even permitted, if the rules in RONR apply.
If you feel you must reply to correspondence, take a tip from members of Congress, who are required to reply to letters from constituents, and create a form letter that is sent to supporters and detractors alike, along the lines of.
"Thank you for your recent correspondence, which has been forwarded to all board members. Please be assured that your views will inform our decision-making process going forward. Thank you again for your interest and input."
There is nothing in RONR that requires the correspondence to be discussed at the meeting. It sounds like this is your custom, but it is not required to even have a motion "to receive and/or file" the correspondence as that is automatic as per RONR.
The way that you represent yourself in writing carries significant weight. Writing in an online environment requires tact, skill, and an awareness that what you write may be there for a very long time and may be seen by people you never considered as your intended audience. From text messages to memos to letters, from business proposals to press releases, your written business communication represents you and your company: your goal is to make it clear, concise, constructive, and professional.
The Header Block appears at the top left side of your memo, directly underneath the word MEMO or MEMORANDUM in large, bold, capitalized letters. This section contains detailed information on the recipient, sender, and purpose. It includes the following lines:
The length of a memo can range from a few short sentences to a multi-page report that includes figures, tables, and appendices. Whatever the length, there is a straightforward organizational principal you should follow. Organize the content of your memo so that it answers the following questions for the reader:
The final part of the message indicates what, if any, action is required or requested of the readers. If you are asking your readers to do something, be as courteous as possible, and try to indicate how this action will also benefit them.
7.1 Correspondence: Text Messages, Emails, Memos, and Letters Copyright 2019 by Suzan Last is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.
John Adams (1735-1826) and Abigail Smith Adams (1744-1818) exchanged over 1,100 letters, beginning during their courtship in 1762 and continuing throughout John's political career (until 1801). These warm and informative letters include John's descriptions of the Continental Congress and his impressions of Europe while he served in various diplomatic roles, as well as Abigail's updates about their family, farm, and news of the Revolution's impact on the Boston area.
c80f0f1006