user

Can a committee have multiple reports on an issue representing different viewpoints (e.g. democrats vs. republicans)? Does the majority win and decide what goes in the official committee report? How does it work in US government where a committee has democrats and republicans which may take two different sides on an issue? Do they have separate majority and minority reports? How would something like that work based on RONR if there are two different major views of a committee?

I recently read that exec committee meeting minutes don't have to be shared with the general membership. However, let's say there are some old meeting minutes and there's new people on the executive committee. I assume they should be allowed to read the old records. Where in RONR does it say that this new exec committee has the right to read old exec committee minutes? Thanks

Thanks!

Thank you for your edit also. Very helpful.

Thank you.

If a member holds two roles, how does this affect a quorum? For example, if there are 8 officer roles which are held by 7 people (where one person holds two roles), I assume a quorum is now 4 people (and not the 5 that would be required if all 8 roles were different people)?

Our bylaws require us to allow members to attend executive committee meetings. However, my question is, to what extent are they allowed to participate? Can they make motions? Can they participate in debate/discussion? Can they vote on motions (pretty sure this should be no)? Anything else? Thanks

Got it. Thanks. If I have to debate something, I just like to be prepared in advance rather than not being given any time to consider the issue. Though I suppose I could just move to postpone discussion of the item.

That is good info. Thanks. Ok. Got it. Thanks. Thanks. I don't think I would try to do that. Thanks. If that's the case, do you know how it would affect the answer to my original question?

I think it's more like the text right above that where it says: “In cases in which an agenda is adopted, usually this is done at the outset of a session and the agenda is intended to cover the entire session. At a session having no prescribed or adopted order of business, such an agenda is followed as a guide by the chair pending its formal adoption and can be adopted by majority vote, even if it contains special orders; it is then the order of business for that session.” Before the meeting, the president asks executive committee members if they have any items they want placed on the agenda. They are placed on the agenda, and then we discuss them at the meeting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel we start off at a session that has no prescribed or adopted order of business, and then we adopt it at the beginning of the meeting and then it becomes the order of business for that session. But if we adopt the agenda and it didn't include a miscellaneous or new business section, could anyone still bring up any new business item they wanted? Or would they need a 2/3rds vote to modify the agenda since it was already adopted?

Yes, exactly this. One could move to postpone it, but then it would be debatable and require a majority vote.

Before the meeting, the president asks executive committee members if they have any items they want placed on the agenda. They are placed on the agenda, and then we discuss them at the meeting. I believe it's like it says on page 371 “By a single vote, a series of special orders or general orders—or a mixture of both—can be made; such a series is called an agenda.” It's a mixture of special orders or general orders I suppose. The items placed on the agenda are usually new items of business. So based on this, if we adopted the agenda and it didn't include a miscellaneous or new business section, could anyone still bring up any new business item they wanted? Or would they need a 2/3rds vote to modify the agenda since it was already adopted?

If it makes a difference, this is the executive committee and I suppose we are responsible for just about anything in the organization. We adopt an agenda so we have an organized list of items to discuss. Also, as it says in RONR “It is customary to adopt an agenda or program for each session in organizations that do not hold frequent regular meetings” which I suppose would also be a reason.

Thank you.

Thank you

Let's say there are meeting minutes that have been approved. However, the meeting minutes are inaccurate or incomplete for some reason. Let's say there's an audio recording of the meeting where we can clearly hear what happened and clearly hear the exact motion that was passed. What officially takes precedence - what really happened or what is written in the minutes?

Thanks for this. I had been wondering if a person holding two positions would get multiple votes. Do you know where in RONR it states the person will only have one vote even if they hold two positions?

Let's say the committee adopts the agenda. Near the end of the meeting, a member brings up a controversial item for discussion that is not on the agenda. Is this prohibited since the item is not on the agenda? That is of course assuming there is no 2/3rds vote to amend the agenda. Let's say there's an item on the agenda that provides time for "Miscellaneous" and the controversial item of discussion was brought up then. Is that allowed? I feel that is somewhat unacceptable since controversial of discussion should be placed on the agenda ahead of time to allow people time to prepare for debate. What do the official rules say though? If it is acceptable to bring it up in a "Miscellaneous" section of the agenda, what should one do? Debate the approval of the agenda saying "Miscellaneous" sections should not be placed on agendas?