Dan Honemann

Then leave it off. The agenda for a meeting is whatever the assembly adopts as the agenda.

None, I suppose. As far as RONR is concerned, the only duty of the secretary is to produce a draft of the minutes for approval at the next meeting.

The exact wording of this provision in your bylaws may provide the answer to your question as to who it is who has the authority to decide whether committee meetings will be held electronically or in person. Generally speaking, since this is a committee of the Faculty Senate, the Senate would have the authority to decide this question. Absent any action by the Senate, the committee itself would have this authority. But again, it is essential to know exactly what your bylaws say in this regard.

No, you do not have control over whether or not your committee meets in person or electronically. "Electronic Meetings in Committees. As in the case of a board or any assembly, committees that are expressly established by the bylaws can hold a valid electronic meeting only if authorized in the bylaws to do so. A committee that is not expressly established by the bylaws, however, may instead be authorized to hold electronic meetings by a standing rule of the parent body or organization, by the motion establishing the particular committee, or by instructions included in a motion referring an individual matter to the committee or issued subsequent to such a motion (see 13:8(d), 13:22)." RONR, 12th ed., 9:35

Since you say you are a shareholder, I gather your organization is incorporated. If so, you may well be able to obtain a copy of the charter and bylaws from your Secretary of State (or whichever other state entity handles corporate affairs). It might also be a good idea for you to consult with an attorney.

What is really troublesome is the fact that apparently no one in your organization, including the president and all other officers, can find a copy of your bylaws. Are you sure that this is the case?

If the rules in RONR are controlling, he has this authority only if he, acting alone, appointed the person holding this office pursuant to authority vested in him, and only if "the bylaws or other governing rules do not expressly provide that committee members shall serve '… and until their successors are chosen' or for a fixed period, as '… for a term of two years'". RONR (12th ed.,) 50:14

Take a look at 49:17-19, and come back if you have further questions.

Much depends upon the exact substance of A and B, but generally speaking I am not aware of anything in RONR which prevents the use of this sort of a "provided, however, that" clause.

I agree with Mr. Martin that you should seek legal advice. From a parliamentary law point of view, if a motion was adopted that you believe should not have been adopted it may well be that you can move to rescind it or amend it. For this procedure, see RONR (12th ed.,) 35:1-13. If a motion was rejected that you believe should not have been rejected, it may well be that you can simply move it again. For this procedure see 38:1-9.

Mr. Martin, if you will look back over this entire (unnecessarily prolonged) thread you will note that the question initially asked relates to proceedings in a board, and every one of my responses was directed to this factual setting. I have constantly been referring to an assembly the size of an average subordinate board, and many times direct responses to what I have posted have been flat-out wrong because they do not say anything at all about their being addressed to a materially different factual situation.

It is as far as RONR is concerned.

If you interpret the bylaws as requiring a vote of two-thirds of the members, as I did in my response, it becomes clear why a quorum of two-thirds of the members is required, but I appear to be in the minority as to the proper interpretation of the bylaws in this respect.

Well, if the meeting is being held in a single room, that is all that is required to constitute this particular characteristic of a deliberative assembly. But since you simply refuse to recognize the obvious in connection with what RONR so clearly says in regard to all of this, I see no point in making any further effort to convince you to do so.

That may well be, but since the assembly is meeting in a single room or area, the assembly is obviously meeting under "conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" as would exist if it were meeting "in a single room or area".