Bylaws Committee Chair stops calling meetings

[Guest lillette]

The Bylaws Committee has met several times, and the plan was that the revised bylaws be presented for a vote at the next annual meeting. However, the committee chair does not agree with a new provision in the bylaws and has stopped calling any meetings of the committee. Can two of the members call a meeting?

[Gary c Tesser]

On p. 499, RONR (11th Ed) says:  "COMMITTEE MEETINGS.  When a committee has been appointed, its chairman (or first-named member temporarily acting -- see p. 176)  should call it together.*  If its chairman fails to call a meeting, the committee must meet on the call of any two of its members...."

 

(Some people say this quotation, looking at its second sentence, completely answers your question, Lillette, and, as it happens, in a way that it looks like you would prefer. Other people think that the second sentence needs to be understood in the context of a following, consequential, statement following the first.  This would mean that the second sentence allows any two members to call a meeting of a committee only at the beginning of the life of the committee, and only if, at that time, the new committee's chairman is derelict in his duty to convene the committee.

 

(Myself I don't think the wording is conclusive.  I'd say go ahead.  But don't say I said that RONR says so.)

_

*(The footnote is not germane. I just mention it for completeness, just as I included the footnote's asterisk.)

[Timothy]

If we take the wording on page 499 to mean that two members can only call a committee meeting if the chairman fails to call the first meeting, then we must also say that it means that the chairman cannot call a meeting other than the first meeting. On the other hand, if the practice is that the chairman (as opposed to the committee) calls any additional meetings, then we must say that two members can call meetings if the chairman is refuses to.

[Dan Honemann]

On p. 499, RONR (11th Ed) says:  "COMMITTEE MEETINGS.  When a committee has been appointed, its chairman (or first-named member temporarily acting -- see p. 176)  should call it together.*  If its chairman fails to call a meeting, the committee must meet on the call of any two of its members...."

 

(Some people say this quotation, looking at its second sentence, completely answers your question, Lillette, and, as it happens, in a way that it looks like you would prefer. Other people think that the second sentence needs to be understood in the context of a following, consequential, statement following the first.  This would mean that the second sentence allows any two members to call a meeting of a committee only at the beginning of the life of the committee, and only if, at that time, the new committee's chairman is derelict in his duty to convene the committee.

 

(Myself I don't think the wording is conclusive.  I'd say go ahead.  But don't say I said that RONR says so.)

_

*(The footnote is not germane. I just mention it for completeness, just as I included the footnote's asterisk.)

 

If you look at the subsection dealing with "Adjournment; Provision for Future Meetings" on pages 501-502, you will see that it says that "When a committee intends to reconvene, it can simply adjourn, or adjourn to meet at a later time. In the first case—when it adjourns without appointing a time for another meeting—the next meeting is held at the call of the chairman, who must ensure that reasonable notice of its time and place is sent to every committee member (see p. 499)." This reference to page 499 lends some support, I think, to the assumption that the sentence there on page 499, lines 21-24, applies with equal force to subsequent meetings. 

[Gary Novosielski]

Dan, that's an interesting point, which I hadn't noticed before, and it actually changes my understanding of that language.  I had been one of those who read it as applying only to an initial meeting of the committee, but the reference back to it from the language about subsequent meetings makes me reconsider.

 

I believe that if the intent of that language had been to restrict this two-person rule to the initial meeting, it could easily have said so.  And if it had, there would be no point in referring back to it when discussing subsequent meetings.  So, assuming the back reference was there for a reason, I now believe that rule was meant to have wider application than I originally thought.

[jstackpo]

But...  it would sure help in explaining matters to non-parliamentarians if there was a flat out positive statement on p. 499 to the effect that the "two-person" rule applied to any meeting, not just the (context-somewhat-implied) first meeting.   The less inferencing we have to do for non-parliamentarians the better.

 

Is the RONR/12 suggestion file open for business?

[Dan Honemann]

But...  it would sure help in explaining matters to non-parliamentarians if there was a flat out positive statement on p. 499 to the effect that the "two-person" rule applied to any meeting, not just the (context-somewhat-implied) first meeting.   The less inferencing we have to do for non-parliamentarians the better.

 

Is the RONR/12 suggestion file open for business?

 

This has been placed into that file quite some time ago.

[jstackpo]

Splendid!  Thank you.

[Gary c Tesser]

So John, how about yelling at Gary Novosielski for a while for using "reconsider" in its non-technical sense?