Guest GLS

Conventions and electronic meetings

16 posts in this topic

RONR 11 ed pp 97-99:

"Except as authorized in the bylaws, the business of an organization or board can be validly transacted only at a regular or properly called meeting—that is, as defined on pages 81–82, a single official gathering in one room or area—of the assembly of its members at which a quorum is present."

Could anyone help me determine:

1) Whether this ("organization or board") applies to a convention of delegates as defined later in the text
2) Whether a convention's Committee on Standing Rules could permit electronic meeting if it is not provided (or disallowed) by the bylaws, or whether other special rules of order pertaining to this being a "special meeting" (a special convention) might do the same

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guest GLS said:

RONR 11 ed pp 97-99:

"Except as authorized in the bylaws, the business of an organization or board can be validly transacted only at a regular or properly called meeting—that is, as defined on pages 81–82, a single official gathering in one room or area—of the assembly of its members at which a quorum is present."

Could anyone help me determine:

1) Whether this ("organization or board") applies to a convention of delegates as defined later in the text

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guest GLS said:

2) Whether a convention's Committee on Standing Rules could permit electronic meeting if it is not provided (or disallowed) by the bylaws, or whether other special rules of order pertaining to this being a "special meeting" (a special convention) might do the same

In my opinion, no. 

In RONR, this is one of those things that must be in the bylaws (p. 97).  Also see the footnote on p. 16. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

Are these "yes"'s and "no"'s in agreement, or not?

Well, I agree with HHH's answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2017 at 0:25 AM, Gary c Tesser said:

Are these "yes"'s and "no"'s in agreement, or not?

 

On 8/31/2017 at 5:15 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes.

 

On 8/31/2017 at 11:59 AM, J. J. said:

Well, I agree with HHH's answer.

Well I thing I better rejoin the NAP and the AIP and thereby find out why I don't get it.  (Me and that alleged Tesser person)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2017 at 6:56 PM, J. J. said:

In my opinion, no. 

In RONR, this is one of those things that must be in the bylaws (p. 97).  Also see the footnote on p. 16. 

 

On 8/31/2017 at 11:59 AM, J. J. said:

Well, I agree with HHH's answer.

OK, then, why, please? -- given, to resolve, then,  the apparent inconsistency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Guest Nancy N. said:

Well I thing I better rejoin the NAP and the AIP and thereby find out why I don't get it.  (Me and that alleged Tesser person)

What makes you thing that'll help?  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guest Nancy N. said:

Well I thing I better rejoin the NAP and the AIP and thereby find out why I don't get it.  (Me and that alleged Tesser person)

1

 

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

What makes you thing that'll help?  :)

Reading between the lines, Mr. H, might we conclude that you will not likely be at the NAP convention next week?  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Reading between the lines, Mr. H, might we conclude that you will not likely be at the NAP convention next week?  :)

No, I won't be at the NAP convention, but I meant nothing more by my response to Nancy other than the fact that being a member of NAP isn't apt to assist in recognizing that, when answers are given to entirely different questions, answering "yes" to one and "no" to the other does not necessarily give rise to an inconsistency.

Besides, I liked that "thing" bit.  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Besides, I liked that "thing" bit.  :)

I got a chuckle out of the "thing" bit, too.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, on the other hand, will be there.  I hadn't been planning on it, but then I missed the state convention and therefore was elected to a delegate position, and figured "why not?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was planning on going but some things have come up that might cause me to have to cancel. I'm supposed to be there for a meeting of the bylaws committee Thursday evening.  Still hoping to make it!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Guest Nancy N. said:

 

OK, then, why, please? -- given, to resolve, then,  the apparent inconsistency?

HHH answered this question:

"1) Whether this ("organization or board") applies to a convention of delegates as defined later in the text "

"This" refers to the passage requiring electronic meetings to be authorized in the bylaws.  HHH correctly stated the rule would apply to a convention delegates.

The second question was:

"Whether a convention's Committee on Standing Rules could permit electronic meeting if it is not provided (or disallowed) by the bylaws, or whether other special rules of order pertaining to this being a "special meeting" (a special convention) might do the same."

Completely consistent with HHH's question, I answered that question as "no."   You could not circumvent the statement in RONR that says electronic meetings had to be authorized in the bylaws, even if you would put that in convention standing rules.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...