Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'executive committee'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • RONR Message Board – Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised
    • General Discussion
    • Advanced Discussion
    • The Robert’s Rules Website
  • About the Message Board
    • Questions or Comments about the Message Board
  • Archive
    • Archived Discussions (2010)

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Found 3 results

  1. Our non-profit (resident run) Council constitution and by-laws provide for an Executive Committee made up of 5 officers (Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer). The current Chair and Vice Chair have been equating meeting as an Executive Committee with an executive session. From what I can tell, you can't have an executive session without the majority of the Council moving to adjourn to an executive session or perhaps without at least the Executive Committee establishing in its meeting that this is an executive session. Am I correct that Executive Committee meetings are not automatically executive sessions? If so, who can decide it is an executive session? The distinction seems important regarding the degree of confidentiality required about the meeting and the ability to inform the entire Council or all the residents. Below is a quote from the Council constitution. Regarding the Executive Committee, the Chair and Vice Chair have been using the phrase "This Committee will set operational priorities and policies for the Council" to attempt to make significant decisions in the Executive Committee meetings and then considering those to be executive sessions so that decisions are not publicized. Regarding the other members of the Council the decisions are "announced", if discussed at all, and there is no ratification by the rest of the Council. They argue this is the Executive Committee's job per this phrase of the Constitution and they are obligated to work this way They used an Executive Committee meeting (with not all Executive Committee members present) to disband a standing committee, based on their interpretation of the by-laws that it could be disbanded, and sent letters (that the full Council had not seen) to inform the committee members. It appears to me their interpretation of this phrase is much too broad and also that they are attempting to use the concept of executive session in ways not intended. In addition to my questions about executive session, how is the "set operational priorities and policies" phrase to be interpreted? Thanks for your consideration of my questions. Constitution: SECTION 3. The five (5) first named officers in Section 1 above shall comprise the Executive Committee of the Council. This Committee will set operational priorities and policies for the Council.
  2. In our bylaws it states that 4 members of the executive committee may call a meeting without the chair's appointment. If our agenda item is an election for a vacant chair seat, would that fall in our rights?
  3. If an Executive Committee is formed, must elected members exceed appointed members?
  • Create New...