Called Meeting

[Guest jim]

Since our by-laws do not address this directly I have the following question.

Can a "called meeting" with a specific purpose of voting on whether it is the desire of the non-profit organization to have a council in place (by-laws state that if it is the desire of the organization they may have one) be held without allowing any discussion? We are going to have a meeting where a short reading of the by-laws concerning the duties of a council will be read, the question will be asked, and ballots handed out, no discussion allowed. It seems unusual that we are not allowing discussion when the members were not told what the meeting was about prior to the meeting.

[David A Foulkes]

Since our by-laws do not address this directly I have the following question.

Can a "called meeting" with a specific purpose of voting on whether it is the desire of the non-profit organization to have a council in place (by-laws state that if it is the desire of the organization they may have one) be held without allowing any discussion? We are going to have a meeting where a short reading of the by-laws concerning the duties of a council will be read, the question will be asked, and ballots handed out, no discussion allowed. It seems unusual that we are not allowing discussion when the members were not told what the meeting was about prior to the meeting.

Let's start with this:

1. Do your bylaws allow for "called" (i.e. Special) meetings? If not, then you can't.
2. What do you mean the members weren't told what the meeting was going to cover? The notice of a "called" meeting must include the reason for the meeting, otherwise how will members know whether they want to attend? how do YOU know what it's about?

[Guest jim]

Let's start with this:

1. Do your bylaws allow for "called" (i.e. Special) meetings? If not, then you can't.
2. What do you mean the members weren't told what the meeting was going to cover? The notice of a "called" meeting must include the reason for the meeting, otherwise how will members know whether they want to attend? how do YOU know what it's about?

Yes, our by-laws do allow for our pastor to conduct a "called meeting".

At this point (in a meeting where the purpose was discussed) I have objected to having a meeting where the members were told that "on such-and-such date we are going to have a meeting, please be in attendance". I feel that he should do more than just announce the meeting during church and post it in the bulletin. Secondly, I feel that someone needs to state the purpose of the meeting so everyone can decide whether it is important to come and they will have an opportunity to gather information if they feel it is necessary.

Our by-laws state that we can have the meeting but since it does not address anything other than giving advanced notice an the fact that Robert's Rules newly revised should be used in all conferences, some think that since our by-laws do not state it then we do not have to do it, even though RRNR says otherwise.

[David A Foulkes]

Per RONR, a notice of the meeting including time, place and the exact purpose of the meeting must be mailed out to all members a reasonable number of days in advance. (p. 89 ll. 15-17)

If your leadership isn't obeying the rules (both bylaws and RONR, assuming it's the adopted parliamentary authority), then you need to address that issue. You may be able to discuss this informally with the Pastor (and board, maybe) and get results. If not, see FAQ #20 elsewhere on this site, and read (carefully) Chapter XX in RONR (10th Edition).

If the bylaws do not address a point (such as notice of a called meeting), then you should defer to RONR which does. Just cuz it ain't in the bylaws don't make it not so. (or something to that effect)

[Guest jim]

Per RONR, a notice of the meeting including time, place and the exact purpose of the meeting must be mailed out to all members a reasonable number of days in advance. (p. 89 ll. 15-17)

If your leadership isn't obeying the rules (both bylaws and RONR, assuming it's the adopted parliamentary authority), then you need to address that issue. You may be able to discuss this informally with the Pastor (and board, maybe) and get results. If not, see FAQ #20 elsewhere on this site, and read (carefully) Chapter XX in RONR (10th Edition).

If the bylaws do not address a point (such as notice of a called meeting), then you should defer to RONR which does. Just cuz it ain't in the bylaws don't make it not so. (or something to that effect)

Thanks for verifying that for me.

What about the "no discussion" issue?

[David A Foulkes]

Thanks for verifying that for me.

What about the "no discussion" issue?

"That the right of debate is inherent in such an assembly is implied by the word deliberative." (p. 373 ll. 15-16)

"[E]very member of the assembly as the right to speak to every debatable motion before it is finally acted upon; and subject only to general limitations on debate established by parliamentary law or the rules of the body as explained below, this right cannot be interfered with except by a two-thirds vote." (p. 373 ll. 24-29)

Now, some motions are not debatable. And there are methods by which debate can be shortened or prevented, but this requires certain motions such as to Limit or Extend Debate or Previous Question. These motions must be moved at the meeting itself. Nothing in RONR (that I know of) allows for the prevention of debate to be decided by the chairman in advance of the meeting.

[Guest jim]

"That the right of debate is inherent in such an assembly is implied by the word deliberative." (p. 373 ll. 15-16)

"[E]very member of the assembly as the right to speak to every debatable motion before it is finally acted upon; and subject only to general limitations on debate established by parliamentary law or the rules of the body as explained below, this right cannot be interfered with except by a two-thirds vote." (p. 373 ll. 24-29)

Now, some motions are not debatable. And there are methods by which debate can be shortened or prevented, but this requires certain motions such as to Limit or Extend Debate or Previous Question. These motions must be moved at the meeting itself. Nothing in RONR (that I know of) allows for the prevention of debate to be decided by the chairman in advance of the meeting.

When I raised concern of these issues a couple of comments were made by others in this small meeting.

1) RRNR would only apply during the actual meeting. It should not be used to determine how things are done prior to the meeting.

2) If we do allow debate then (in an effort to be fair) we must have the same amount of discussion for as we do against. Therefore, we will need to limit the debate.

3) That's not how this denomination does things at a higher level.

[David A Foulkes]

When I raised concern of these issues a couple of comments were made by others in this small meeting.

1) RRNR would only apply during the actual meeting. It should not be used to determine how things are done prior to the meeting.

2) If we do allow debate then (in an effort to be fair) we must have the same amount of discussion for as we do against. Therefore, we will need to limit the debate.

3) That's not how this denomination does things at a higher level.

1. Fairly true. However, you can't decide to not have debate prior to a meeting. That's a decision for the assembly to adopt at a meeting. The rules of debate can't be applied outside a meeting context, but once it is called to order, they apply, and only then can debate be curtailed by the adoption of the appropriate motion. Some things in bylaws do apply outside of a meeting context, such as the requirements to call a special meeting (assuming they are in there), and one of those requirements should be that the notice of a special meeting should include the exact business to be discussed.

2. Well, that's not going to work if everyone is on the same side, is it? Or if only one member is against and all others for the motion. Per RONR, all members have the right to speak in debate, two times of no more than 10 minutes each time, on the same question in the same day. The chair should attempt to let opposing viewpoints alternate. But if only one member speaks against the motion, to place a limit (in "fairness") of only one member for the motion to speak denies all other members their parliamentary right to debate, and that's not fair.

3. What rules govern at a higher level might "inherit" down to lower levels, but in general each deliberative assembly follows its own rules. A careful reading of the bylaws at all levels would be necessary to determine how those of a higher level affect yours.

[Josh Martin]

1) RRNR would only apply during the actual meeting. It should not be used to determine how things are done prior to the meeting.

While RONR generally only applies during meetings, some of its provisions also apply to preparations for meetings, such as the information which must be included in the call of a special meeting. Such rules apply in any assembly which has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority.

2) If we do allow debate then (in an effort to be fair) we must have the same amount of discussion for as we do against. Therefore, we will need to limit the debate.

RONR does provide that the chair alternate between pro and con speakers as much as possible, but it does not provide for "equal time" beyond that, largely because the two sides are not always equal. If, for instance, only a single member opposes a motion, it seems a bit silly to give him as much time as the rest of the assembly. So it is not correct that the assembly must have the same amount of discussion on both sides or that it must limit debate, but the assembly certainly may do so if it wishes. This would require a motion to Limit Debate, which takes a 2/3 vote and is not debatable.

3) That's not how this denomination does things at a higher level.

So? The rules "at a higher level" don't necessarily apply at your level. It's also entirely possible the higher level is just doing things wrong.

[Gary Novosielski]

At this point (in a meeting where the purpose was discussed) I have objected to having a meeting where the members were told that "on such-and-such date we are going to have a meeting, please be in attendance".

The problem there is that at a special meeting no business is in order for which previous notice was not given in the call of the meeting.

So, when your special meeting is called to order, about the only motion that will be in order is to Adjourn.

[Guest jim]

The problem there is that at a special meeting no business is in order for which previous notice was not given in the call of the meeting.

So, when your special meeting is called to order, about the only motion that will be in order is to Adjourn.

Thanks to everyone that has replied it is a big help.

Here is the wording in our by-laws,

IV.Called Conferences

1.The called conference consists of all members of the local church who wish to attend, said conference to convene at a time set by the pastor to take care of business arising between the regular conferences. This does not exclude the rights of the state and district overseers to call or moderate conferences in local churches.

2.When necessary to have a called conference, all members of the local church should be notified if possible.

Order of Conferences

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall serve as the guide for conducting all business conferences.

1) The way I understand it, RONR is the parliamentary rules to follow.

2) Our by-laws state that "all members of the local church should be notified if possible". That seems rather vague. Should I determine that since it does not go beyond that statement, RONR rules for notifying members should be followed? I would hate to have someone say, "I tried to notify members but it was not possible".

3) RONR p.89, Special Meeting, says that "...and convened only to consider one or more items of business specified in the call of the meeting." Therefore, we can not discuss or add anything to the agenda other than what was included in the call of the meeting. If members wanted to add something to a meeting they would need to request that a called meeting be held for that purpose. Is that correct?

Thanks again for all the help.

[Gary Novosielski]

IV.Called Conferences

1.The called conference consists of all members of the local church who wish to attend, said conference to convene at a time set by the pastor to take care of business arising between the regular conferences. This does not exclude the rights of the state and district overseers to call or moderate conferences in local churches.

2.When necessary to have a called conference, all members of the local church should be notified if possible.

Order of Conferences

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall serve as the guide for conducting all business conferences.

1) The way I understand it, RONR is the parliamentary rules to follow.

Right, but only where they do not conflict with your local rules

2) Our by-laws state that "all members of the local church should be notified if possible". That seems rather vague. Should I determine that since it does not go beyond that statement, RONR rules for notifying members should be followed? I would hate to have someone say, "I tried to notify members but it was not possible".

I agree that it's vague. Howver, your bylaws supersede RONR, so the "if possible" applies, not the rule in RONR. You could make the case that "possible" is a much more stringent standard than "practicable" or "feasible", and argue that almost anything is "possible". But the meaning of "possible", if not defined in your bylaws, is up to your society to interpret.

3) RONR p.89, Special Meeting, says that "...and convened only to consider one or more items of business specified in the call of the meeting." Therefore, we can not discuss or add anything to the agenda other than what was included in the call of the meeting. If members wanted to add something to a meeting they would need to request that a called meeting be held for that purpose. Is that correct?

Yes. The bylaws should give them the right to call one, even if the pastor or other leadership disagree. But sometimes they don't, and then you're stuck. While RONR defines special meetings, it does not authorize their use, unless the bylaws of the society do.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Since our by-laws do not address this directly I have the following question.

Can a "called meeting" with a specific purpose of

voting on whether it is the desire of the non-profit organization to have a council in place ...

... (Bylaws state that if it is the desire of the organization they may have one) ...

... be held without allowing any discussion?

We are going to have a meeting where a short reading of the bylaws concerning the duties of a council will be read, the question will be asked, and ballots handed out, no discussion allowed.

It seems unusual that we are not allowing discussion when the members were not told what the meeting was about prior to the meeting.

S1.) ... our bylaws do

not

address this directly ...

S2.) ... bylaws

state

that if ...

So far, you are asking us to interpret non-Robertian rules, which no one has read, i.e., you have not posted the exact language.

We are going to have a meeting where

a short reading of the bylaws concerning the duties of a council will be read,

the question will be asked,

and ballots handed out,

no discussion allowed.

Sorry to hear that.

You don't have to tolerate this.

I don't know why you even do!

It seems unusual that we are not allowing discussion when the members were not told what the meeting was about prior to the meeting.

Indeed, it is unusual.

Why blindly obey that which makes no sense, and which is not supported by any rule?

[Josh Martin]

So far, you are asking us to interpret non-Robertian rules, which no one has read, i.e., you have not posted the exact language.

Actually, he has, in his most recent post.