Johanna

Uh what? That is not 7-day notice as required by our bylaws. Sorry. Am I missing something?

Ha ha ha -- OK -- This is a local association. Time zone is not an issue. If some parents are outside their homes (travelling, or whatever), I think the prevailing time zone will be the rule.

I understand that. Unfortunately, the President who called the special general membership is on the Board minority side. They majority will call a vote tonight to invalidate the Tue's special meeting (using the advice from the parliamentarian). I do not want to write, at this time, too detailed information why this is only shot to do special general membership meeting before things get worse. He was answering my email (that was sent privately but he chose to reply to the whole Board). On my email I asked about the interpretation of 9:4 specifically because the majority board was questioning the validity of the President's call for the special general meeting. Anyway, I think there is so much I can do to help the association that does not seem to be able to rescue themselves. As far as I know, there has not been any special general membership meeting called in recent years. Even our regular general membership meeting is really not officially called. They are just put into the calendar at the beginning of the school year and then a reminder on the monthly newsletter that there is general meeting that month. Very informal. Very cordial. Until the last month that is. To clarify, the notice was sent by the President VIA EMAIL (there is no other way because we do not have the parent's mailing addresses) on Tue 11:55 pm. Thank you all.

Well our newly hired parliamentarian disagreed on how to interpret the 9:4. Here what he wrote: Exact wording of our bylaws is in my original post above. Unfortunately he just ruled in favor of the majority (of EC). I guess nothing I can do now. Thanks all for answering my questions. Have a good weekend. EDIT: I understand that one might argue that this is the "spirit of the law" and "the letter of the law" argument. But the EC-majority kept using the two approaches as they please.

Context: High School PTA group Background: Divisive and toxic environment of 2 groups with one group obtained majority. How do you count the "advance notice requirement for properly called meeting"? Is it x number of days TIMES 24 hours -- or you just count x number of days. Bylaws: The president called a meeting via email to the members on, let's just say, Tuesday at 11:55 pm for a meeting the following Tuesday at 6:30 pm. So if the requirement is 7 times 24 hrs (aka 168 hrs), the general meeting was not properly called. But according to 9:4 ........ it seems it is properly called: Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri, Sat, Sun, and Monday. Yes, I understand that it was 11:55 pm on Tue. Anything else in the RONR that can break the impasse? It is a special meeting (aka sort of emergency) because we are facing a looming deadline that will impact the whole school community. Thanks.

Unfortunately dissent will not be known as in the past, general membership meeting never was really involved about any of the nitty-gritty of the EC/EB. Parents just want to know if their kids' programs running, if historic school-wide events running, etc. In any case, it is what it is. The parents did vote even though only less than 20% did. So each of us technically was "supported" by less than 10% of the members and the votes separating the 2 groups are only between 2-10 votes. Thank you all. Cheers!

Thank you all.

State: Virginia; Organization: PTSA/PTA Type of meeting: Executive Board. Number of members: 7 Question: What is the legality of having an audio recording of an executive board meeting in Virginia? Is it enough to have the majority votes (the pro audio recording do have the majority votes) or it has to be unanimous? Need a quote in written state statute. The minority objecting the audio recording of an executive board meeting based on the privacy issues concern and concern that they (minority) can not express their minority voice and opinions freely and that the recording will not be leaked, chopped, twisted, taken out of context by the majority and posted in their social media platforms. Follow up question: If it is legal to have audio recording only by majority votes, who is supposed be doing the recording (ie the recording secretary using his/her phone?) or what right the majority has over that recording? Their reasoning is that so they can go back to the recording if they feel the recording secretary (the minority side) twisting the minutes. That argument is really flimsy as they do have the vote to approve (or disapprove and change) the minutes anyway. Thank you in advance.

Thank you Richard. I have a copy but I can not read the 600+ pages unfortunately. Therefore asking for quick reference. If someone can point to specific sections (say 2:23) that would be something I can follow up. Our bylaws did say that we will follow RONR as our parliamentarian authority when applicable and when it does not conflict with unit bylaws, state org. and national org. Not very clear what you meant on the difference between special rules of order and standing rules of order. Can you direct me on the section number(s)? Next question: Does it have to say "...... of order"? -- I thought the name of the document should be "Standing Rules". In any case, you seem to say that both Rules (Special and Standing) they all deal with conduct during meetings and not conduct of a board member OUTSIDE the meetings. We have a board member who is constantly talking with the press without expresses approval of the Board. The same person also constantly Twitting (and re-tweeting) others without approval from the board and a lot of them speaking ill of the school in which this association resides and the parent organization. We do not have enough votes (as a matter of fact, he has the majority votes) to remove him but few of his board supporters are open to have the standing rules (if this is the correct way to do it) to prevent him to do the problematic things mentioned previously in the future. I know I might not write things coherently here. But I hope you understand the gist of it. Thanks

Context: High School PTA group Background: Divisive and toxic environment of 2 groups with one group obtained majority. We are in the process of creating a Standing Rules to have rules for certain behaviors or certain ways to do things because the 2 groups are constantly disagreeing to something. Question: Does the SR has to state the following: I kind of remember that that RR does allow some deviation of the RR if that what the EC/EB wants. Please advise. Thanks

Section 48.2: In the ordinary society ..... what was DONE .... and not what was SAID ....... Our PTA has just elected new Executive Committee Members, resulting a solid block of 4 like-minded members with certain agenda (that is why they ran) in the 8-members EC. One of the EC members is the school principal who, historically, abstains from voting. One of the member is either abstain or vote with the majority (in this case the block of 4). With the way the 48.2 is written, any objections by the minority will never be recorded. Any reasoning for the dissenting votes will never be known to the general membership. This does not seem right. Please advise. PS: 48.3 will not help either because the 4-person block will not adopt any special rule of order.