Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Special committee never deliberated


lipets

Recommended Posts

I just received a special committee report that will be presented at an annual meeting in few weeks.

It evolved a very complex and controversial issue.

There were 7 members scattered around the country I knew one of them and called to ask how the conclusion could be reached that they did.

I was told they had never spoken on a conference call or to each other, there was a few emails, then a vote by email.

I thought there must simultaneous communication to have a deliberative meeting.

P 482

tks

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just received a special committee report that will be presented at an annual meeting in few weeks.

It evolved a very complex and controversial issue.

There were 7 members scattered around the country I knew one of them and called to ask how the conclusion could be reached that they did.

I was told they had never spoken on a conference call or to each other, there was a few emails, then a vote by email.

I thought there must simultaneous communication to have a deliberative meeting.

P 482

You are correct unless the bylaws allows the committee to conduct business via e-mail (RONR p. 2 footnote, pp. 408-409). Also, using teleconferencing is a no no unless the bylaws specifically authorize it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet, and yet...

Given that the committee was known, at the time it was established and the members appointed, to be geographically extended, and (presuming) there was no travel budget for meetings, could there not be at least an implicit assumption that their "deliberations" would be by mail (e- or p- , it makes little difference) and that their report could be considered proper, per page 485, line 32, thru p. 486, line 3?

Don't forget, a committee's report is not "final" -- the annual session will have plenty of opportunity to consider it and adopt what it thinks is best.

Whether the "expectation" from p. 486 can be taken as superseding the general requirements for in-person meetings is not entirely clear in the book. Maybe RONR/11?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just received a special committee report that will be presented at an annual meeting in few weeks.

It evolved a very complex and controversial issue.

There were 7 members scattered around the country I knew one of them and called to ask how the conclusion could be reached that they did.

I was told they had never spoken on a conference call or to each other, there was a few emails, then a vote by email.

I thought there must simultaneous communication to have a deliberative meeting.

P 482

See p. 485, l. 32 - p. 486, l. 3. If it is impractical for the committee members to meet, the report of the committee can only contain what was agreed to by all of its members. If the committee was appointed from different sections of the country with the expectation that its work will be done by correspondence, the report can contain only what was agreed to by a majority of its members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See p. 485, l. 32 - p. 486, l. 3. If it is impractical for the committee members to meet, the report of the committee can only contain what was agreed to by all of its members. If the committee was appointed from different sections of the country with the expectation that its work will be done by correspondence, the report can contain only what was agreed to by a majority of its members.

I'm confused by the superficial contradiction. Seems in some instance (impractical for members to meet) it is a unanimous (agreed to by every one of the members) report, and in another (appointed from different sections of the country) it's a majority of members in agreement. Can't be both at the same time, so what is the actual difference here? Why two different possibilities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused by the superficial contradiction. Seems in some instance (impractical for members to meet) it is a unanimous (agreed to by every one of the members) report, and in another (appointed from different sections of the country) it's a majority of members in agreement. Can't be both at the same time, so what is the actual difference here? Why two different possibilities?

Good point. We'll see if you like the new version any better. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused by the superficial contradiction. Seems in some instance (impractical for members to meet) it is a unanimous (agreed to by every one of the members) report, and in another (appointed from different sections of the country) it's a majority of members in agreement. Can't be both at the same time, so what is the actual difference here? Why two different possibilities?

It seems that if the assembly expects the committee to meet, and if the committee finds it impractical to meet, the committee must be in unanimous agreement on the report. However, if the assembly expects the committee to perform its work by correspondence, the report can contain what was agreed to by a majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that if the assembly expects the committee to meet, and if the committee finds it impractical to meet, the committee must be in unanimous agreement on the report. However, if the assembly expects the committee to perform its work by correspondence, the report can contain what was agreed to by a majority.

the report contained one dissenting opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the report contained one dissenting opinion.

This is interesting. If a dissenting opinion was actually inside the report, there's a good possibility that the dissenting member actually agreed to the report, since the report references his dissent on the issue. For example, committee members could agree to a report that indicates that the members of the committee could not come to an agreement on the issue referred to the committee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just received a special committee report that will be presented at an annual meeting in few weeks.

It evolved a very complex and controversial issue.

There were 7 members scattered around the country I knew one of them and called to ask how the conclusion could be reached that they did.

I was told they had never spoken on a conference call or to each other, there was a few emails, then a vote by email.

I thought there must simultaneous communication to have a deliberative meeting.

P 482

You are generally correct, however, there some exceptions for committees. If a committee has been appointed from various parts of the country and is expected to complete its work by correspondence, then its report may contain what is agreed to by a majority of its members. The first criterion certainly applies here. I don't know if the second does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...