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

15 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

Quorum is based on number of members present.

14 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Correct.

4 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

The general principle is that a person who wears two hats does not become two people.  In matters of quorum or voting or the like, it is appropriate to count heads, not hats.

Thanks!

9 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

Your bylaws say they can attend. They can attend. Unless your bylaws give them any other rights at the executive committee meetings, they have no other rights as they are not members of the body that is meeting.

The executive committee can adopt a motion to allow non-members (that is,people who are not members of the executive committee) to speak at the meeting or, by a 2/3 vote, suspend the rules and allow them to participate in debate. Page 263 states that the rules may not be suspended to allow non-members to vote, as this would breach a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

Thank you for your edit also. Very helpful.

3 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

Your bylaws say they can attend. They can attend. Unless your bylaws give them any other rights at the executive committee meetings, they have no other rights as they are not members of the body that is meeting.

The executive committee can adopt a motion to allow non-members (that is,people who are not members of the executive committee) to speak at the meeting or, by a 2/3 vote, allow them to participate in debate.

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

1 minute ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Not much.  The answer is that, if the rules in RONR apply, the agenda does not prohibit members from making motions under New Business, or Miscellaneous, or simply after all agenda items are disposed of and before adjournment.   As Mr. Martin pointed out, the purpose of an agenda is simply to ensure that important items are covered first. 

In fact, it might well be said about the purpose of RONR in general that it is intended to facilitate members' ability to participate in decision-making in an efficient manner, not to provide mechanisms whereby their participation can be thwarted.  Since you refer several times to "controversial" matters, I would add that, in my experience, controversial topics that are systematically suppressed almost never go away, and typically become ever more controversial, not less so.

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.

17 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Here's a link to a short essay that may help to clear up your questions.

That is good info. Thanks.

7 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

No, it does not make a difference.

Yes. The purpose of an agenda in RONR is to ensure that the most important items are considered first, not to limit the items which may be considered.

Ok. Got it. Thanks.

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree with the answers above but would point out that your organization, if it so desires, may adopt a special rule of order (or a bylaws provision) that only items on the agenda may be taken up at a meeting.  An alternative provision would be that a super-majority vote of some kind,  such as a two thirds vote, is necessary in order to take up an item not on the agenda.   I would be very hesitant to adopt a rule that an item must be on the agenda in order to be taken up, even though I suppose the agenda could be amended at the meeting to add the desired item.  Such strict rules wind up backfiring and leading to unintended consequences all too often.

Thanks. I don't think I would try to do that.

49 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

In many organizations, an "executive committee", sometimes called a "steering committee" is actually in the nature of a board, and would not follow the rules that apply to standing and special committees.  Many of the comments in this thread that refer to committees would therefore not apply.

Thanks. If that's the case, do you know how it would affect the answer to my original question?

On 1/8/2019 at 10:22 AM, George Mervosh said:

It could override the standard order of business, if adopted by a 2/3 vote.

"At a session that already has an order of business, an agenda can be adopted by a majority vote only if it does not create any special orders and does not conflict with the existing order of business; otherwise, a two-thirds vote is required (see also p. 264, ll. 14–28). "  RONR (p. 372)

However it doesn't matter here as  committees are not bound by the standard order of business.

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?

On 1/8/2019 at 6:30 PM, Guest Zev said:

If "User" thinks he/she needs more time for reflection, why not move to postpone the "controversial" item to the next meeting and in the meantime prepare oneself?

On 1/8/2019 at 7:42 PM, Josh Martin said:

The OP is certainly free to do so. Such a motion would be debatable and would require a majority vote for adoption.

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

On 1/8/2019 at 6:42 AM, jstackpo said:

Since, as described on page 371, the "agenda" is simply a list of business items which, when the agenda is adopted, are placed in the "General Orders" portion of a business meeting, the adoption of an agenda places NO restrictions on items of business not on the list that can and properly should be introduced in the "New Business" portion of the order of business.  It sounds like User's "Miscellaneous" is just an (informal) name for "New Business".   The standard order of business is already established by the inclusion of RONR in the bylaws -- page 353.

 A reason for adopting an agenda would be to give those listed items priority in the meeting over "surprise" New Business items, especially controversial ones.

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?

On 1/8/2019 at 1:58 AM, Hieu H. Huynh said:

The committee could discuss whatever it is responsible for without an agenda. Why is one being 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.

18 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

See "ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE" in RONR 11th ed., p. 407.

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?

On 1/1/2019 at 9:44 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Unless your rules say otherwise, he can continue in both (assuming you follow your procedures for filling vacancies correctly). However, he will still have only one vote in board matters.

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?