Calion

No. You’ve got it exactly backwards. There’s nothing in In Brief which indicates that committee reports are handled differently than officer reports. That’s precisely the problem I’m complaining about. RONR itself, on the other hand, makes clear that they are indeed treated differently, by specifying that almost all committee reports must be submitted in writing. Since it says nothing of the sort about officer reports, they of course may be given orally.

The text is indeed quite clear: Both officer and committee reports may be given orally, and neither are ever entered into the minutes. I'm astonished that there is debate about this. Give In Brief to anyone literate who is not familiar with RONR pp. 531/525–7, have them read any part of it or the entire thing, and then ask whether committee reports have to be in writing in nearly all cases, and they will of course say "no," unless they suspect a trick question. Certainly they will have no basis for believing that officer reports are handled differently from committee reports in this regard. Let me quote the relevant passages for clarity: "When assigned the floor, the [committee] chairman or other reporting member either gives the report orally or, if it is written, reads it or gives it to the secretary to be read." "The minutes do not include the contents of the reports of officers or committees, except as necessary to cover motions arising out of them." If you give these two passages, or any superset of them, to anyone not already knowing the correct answer, and they conclude that committee (but not officer) reports must be entered in full into the minutes if they are not in writing—or, for that matter, that committee reports (but not officer reports) must almost always be in writing—, I'll eat my hat.

Officer's reports may routinely be given orally. Nothing indicates that committee reports are handled differently than officer reports. Therefore any reasonable person will conclude that committee reports may also routinely be given orally.

Yes, you did. That is not at all equivalent to saying that "there are no circumstances under which it is appropriate for an officer report to be made orally," nor do I at all see that that is the case. Can you substantiate it?

You have not. Could you support this?

Indeed, since In Brief says—without noting any exceptions or mentioning anywhere (even in the section on committee reports on p. 164–5) that committee reports should almost always be submitted in writing—that "the minutes do not contain the reports of…committees," I don't see how you can say In Brief is accurate on this point, without legalistic convolutions of the sort anathema to the purpose of In Brief. Yes, but can you point to anything else in In Brief where, if one follows the plain meaning of the instructions therein, one will be behaving wrongly according to RONR?

Are you joking? Anyone not familiar with RONR p. 511/525–7 will obviously conclude from this that a) committee reports, like officer's reports, may routinely be given orally, and b) like officer's reports, when they are given, whether written or orally, they should not be included in the minutes.

And to record in full all oral officer reports in the minutes?

Everyone seems to be missing the actual point here, which is that if one only reads In Brief, one will be left with an entirely false impression of how committee reports are treated. The fact that one can use legalistic reasoning to show that In Brief can be interpreted such that it is not actually contradictory with RONR doesn't affect that.

Yes, which means that committee reports that are in the nature of officer reports, such as "Mr. Smith reports that he has finished painting the clubhouse, as requested by the Society," must be handed in in writing. Why that's a good idea, though…

No. Read what I wrote again. I didn't say, "all committee reports must be entered into the minutes." In Brief does not state or imply that some reports should be treated differently from others, and that committee reports must always be entered in full into the records of the society. Indeed, it strongly implies the exact opposite; that committee reports be treated exactly as officer reports, and gives no indication otherwise. Nor do I see what would be wrong with this approach.

Let me be more clear: "The minutes do not include the contents of the reports of officers or committees, except as necessary to cover motions arising out of them" seems flatly false, or at least conveys an impression that is flatly false. Though I see no reason why that shouldn't be true; why are committee reports (including purely informational ones) treated so differently from officer reports?

Well, that was helpful. Certainly the impression that In Brief leaves is that committee reports are treated just as debate and as officer reports as far as the Secretary is concerned. This is far from the case—indeed the opposite of the case, as all committee reports must be entered in full into the record of the society. Though I'm not sure why.

In Brief is highly misleading here, then, and should be changed to something like, "the minutes do not contain the reports of officers. Committee reports, however, must be entered into the minutes in full, unless they are submitted in writing."

RONR In Brief says (p. 147), "The minutes do not include the contents of the reports of officers or committees…" RONR itself says (p. 511), "A [committee] report can be given orally only if it is brief enough that the secretary can record its complete substance in the minutes…which he must do." So the minutes don't include the reports of committees…unless they are given orally?

Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to know. Members might go along with the order on the informal agenda, especially in a body using the small board rules where the chair might bring them up for discussion himself, but they are not bound to, and can bring up new business in any order, or that is not on the list. But even in a large body, getting your item on the agenda in "new business" might make it more likely that you'll have a chance to raise it.

Nope. Reread what I quoted in the OP. RONR calls what I'm talking about an "agenda" or "order of business." (My "President's memorandum" has more detail, and includes things like "call to order," which is not appropriate on the agenda.)

Right, but "Such an agenda is often provided for information only, with no intention or practice of submitting it for adoption."

“In some organizations, it is customary to send each member, in advance of a meeting, an order of business or agenda, with some indication of the matters to be considered under each heading. Such an agenda is often provided for information only, with no intention or practice of submitting it for adoption. Unless a precirculated agenda is formally adopted at the session to which it applies, it is not binding as to detail or order of consideration, other than as it lists preexisting orders of the day (pp. 364ff.) or conforms to the standard order of business (pp. 25–26, 353ff.) or an order of business prescribed by the rules of the organization (pp. 16, 25).” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 372) Can I take this to mean that the chair can hand out agendas before or at the start of a meeting which list items that members have communicated to him that they intend to raise, or, in a small board, that he himself intends to begin discussion on, under "New Business"?

On p. 654, fn. **, it says, "a resolution preferring charges may combine notice to show cause both why the accused should not be removed from office and why he should not be expelled from membership." Why would a resolution proferring charges include notice to show cause why he should *not* be removed from office? Is this a typo, or is there something I'm not understanding here?

RONR P. 495 states that "The president cannot assume [the power to appoint committees] unless it is given to him by the bylaws…" Can this be changed by a special rule of order? I.E. can a special rule of order give the president the power to appoint committees as a general rule?

Okay, after some more research and thought, I have reached some tentative conclusions. Feel free to tell me I should start a new thread instead of reawakening this one. Unit committees are established by a charter which obliges them to follow BSA rules, regulations, policies, and guidelines. The unit is “supervised by” and “operated under the guidance of” the unit committee. Unit committees are boards under the definition in RONR §49. Unit committees are not part of a society. Committee members serve at the pleasure of the Chartered Organization Representative, and the committee cannot expel members on its own authority. Unit committees are required to operate within the Chartered Organization's policies and guidelines. RONR p. 486 states that "a board that is not part of a society may make its own rules.” Therefore, per 3. and 4., unit committees can make their own rules, which, per RONR §2, would seem to include bylaws, rules of order, and standing rules. So question 1: Should unit committees have their own bylaws? My current feeling is that no, they should not. Of the sections listed on RONR p. 13, (1), (2), and (3) are dictated by the charter and BSA policy; as for (4), per BSA policy, the chairman is really the only officer, who can appoint or replace members in other positions at will; as for (5), BSA guidelines say that the chairman calls the meetings; as for (7), BSA guidelines establish various Roles which can be held by multiple people at once, making them, in effect, standing subcommittees. Moreover, having bylaws would seem to imply that the committee answers to itself, which is not the case. Having bylaws when a superior organization can dictate that the bylaws be changed at any time seems out of step with the purpose of bylaws. However, having rules of order and standing rules does seem like a good idea. Counterarguments: A ) "Unit committees are part of a society; they are an instrument of the chartered organization." While that's true as far as it goes, they are neither a committee of that society, nor the board of that society, and so it seems to me that the committee is not part of a society in the sense of RONR p. 486, in much the same way that a State university board of trustees is a creature of the State legislature, but is not part of the State legislature. B ) There are things that can and perhaps should be done in the bylaws, such as Establishing meeting days (the official guidelines only say that the chair calls the meetings, which doesn't necessarily contradict this); Determining what actions may be taken outside of meetings, such as deciding to spend small amounts of money; Authorizing another member to preside in the absence of the chairman; Establishing standing committees and other roles/offices (though the various Roles are established by guideline, there's nothing saying that that list cannot be expanded, or more-formal subcommittees be formed); Setting a quorum other than ½ of the membership; Anything else the membership wants definitively established and difficult to change, such as establishing formal policy documents for the operations of the unit; And, of course, prescribing a parliamentary authority for the committee. However, it seems to me that all of these things can be done with Rules of Order and Standing Rules documents. So here's question 2: What rules of order (if any) should unit committees establish? The more I think about it, the more I think that maybe RONR will work fine; the committee is a board, and therefore automatically follows the small board rules (unless it gets too big, I guess). Glancing through RONR, the only thing I can see that would have to be changed is the disciplinary procedures, and that only to the extent that, similarly to how committees behave on p. 501, ll 14-26, the board could not expel a member, but only report misbehavior to the chartered organization. Even the Officers chapter would not have to be changed, I think, as everything relevant in that chapter is dictated by the bylaws. Somehow making clear in the rules of order that the committee should use the small board rules would be good, but I'm not quite sure how to do that, since it wouldn't need to be dictated, just explained. I mean, most of what's in RONR would never be used, and most motions would be by unanimous consent or quick, fairly informal vote (perhaps with assumed motions), but that's true of any small assembly. Sorry if this is way too long; I can shorten and break it up if it's too involved to easily respond to.

Yes, but I'm not sure how to make use of it, or what it changes.

Like what, other than that one footnote (which I admit is controlling, but it seems odd to have controlling information in a footnote)?

Guest Zev has already shown me the error of my ways. Though providing a rule in a footnote that would at least very plausibly not be a rule if it wasn't for the footnote seems like a bad idea to me.