Sunshine laws and teleconference

[wfdickjr]

Our municipal park board has nothing in its bylaws that authorizes teleconferencing. State law authorizes teleconferencing for boards like ours but does not require it. Our bylaws say we must follow RONR where not superseded by state law. My question is: if we want to teleconference, does the state law allowing teleconferencing suffice or does our particular board still need a bylaw that authorizes teleconferencing?

[Chris Harrison]

Our municipal park board has nothing in its bylaws that authorizes teleconferencing. State law authorizes teleconferencing for boards like ours but does not require it. Our bylaws say we must follow RONR where not superseded by state law. My question is: if we want to teleconference, does the state law allowing teleconferencing suffice or does our particular board still need a bylaw that authorizes teleconferencing?

RONR says that voting by teleconference is not allowed unless the bylaws provides for it (RONR pp. 408-409). However, applicable law may supersede RONR so you will need to look at the law itself to determine if it authorizes the use of teleconferencing even without bylaw authorization.

[wfdickjr]

RONR says that voting by teleconference is not allowed unless the bylaws provides for it (RONR pp. 408-409). However, applicable law may supersede RONR so you will need to look at the law itself to determine if it authorizes the use of teleconferencing even without bylaw authorization.

Thank you, Chris, for your response and the reference. If I understand you correctly, this is not at all what the board will expect. I hope you don't mind but I want to be sure that I have this straight.

To be in compliance with RONR, our board must have a bylaw that expressly permits teleconferencing. This RONR requirement for a bylaw will not be superseded by a state law that permits teleconferencing unless that law expressly excludes the requirement for a bylaw.

Did I say that correctly?

[Chris Harrison]

To be in compliance with RONR, our board must have a bylaw that expressly permits teleconferencing. This RONR requirement for a bylaw will not be superseded by a state law that permits teleconferencing unless that law expressly excludes the requirement for a bylaw.

Did I say that correctly?

Not exactly. If no applicable law was involved you would need to have the bylaws specifically provide for voting by teleconference in order to validly do it. However since there is an applicable law involved a monkey wrench has been thrown in the works. You would need to look to the language of the law (and possibly speak to a lawyer who is familiar with the laws in question) to determine if its mere existence will suffice for you all to validly use teleconferencing.

[Tim Wynn]

Wfdickjr,

Applicable procedural laws of the state supersede your bylaws and RONR. For questions regarding the meaning of state laws, an attorney should be consulted.

[wfdickjr]

I appreciate the responses. I have lurked here long enough to see where they are going and why. Given that I understand this, I would like to remove my board and state from the picture and talk about the situation in general terms. My interest at this point is in parliamentary law, not my own situation. I just want to know the answer to the question I make at the end. I am new at this so if my question is boring or aggravating, or I am asking too much from this forum, please just let it drop.

I have listed three possible situations below. Only the third actually interests me but I include the other two so it will be clear that I am aware of these situations and how RONR applies - or does not apply. Each situation involves an organization that, by its own bylaws, must comply with RONR except where not otherwise covered by its own bylaws. To remove the need for qualifying any response with respect to possible need for interpretation, I would prefer that you assume, if possible, that the highest possible relevant authorities have all ruled that the description given represents that particular situation both accurately and completely.

SITUATIONS

1. The organization's bylaws or relevant external authorities such as city ordinances, state law, or federal law specifically forbid <something> or specifically require <something>. (As I understand it, RONR is superseded.)

2. The organization's bylaws specifically permit something. (As I understand it, RONR is superceded.)

3. The organization's bylaws are silent on an issue while a relevant external authority, definitely not the organization's own bylaws, permits <something> but does not require <something>. (This is the root of my question - I have no idea what happens in this situation.)

QUESTION: Under situation 3, if RONR forbids <something> may the organization in question do <something> on grounds that it is permitted by a relevant external authority and still be in compliance with RONR - and thus its own bylaws?

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

[Rob Elsman]

I appreciate the responses. I have lurked here long enough to see where they are going and why. Given that I understand this, I would like to remove my board and state from the picture and talk about the situation in general terms. My interest at this point is in parliamentary law, not my own situation. I just want to know the answer to the question I make at the end. I am new at this so if my question is boring or aggravating, or I am asking too much from this forum, please just let it drop.

I have listed three possible situations below. Only the third actually interests me but I include the other two so it will be clear that I am aware of these situations and how RONR applies - or does not apply. Each situation involves an organization that, by its own bylaws, must comply with RONR except where not otherwise covered by its own bylaws. To remove the need for qualifying any response with respect to possible need for interpretation, I would prefer that you assume, if possible, that the highest possible relevant authorities have all ruled that the description given represents that particular situation both accurately and completely.

SITUATIONS

1. The organization's bylaws or relevant external authorities such as city ordinances, state law, or federal law specifically forbid <something> or specifically require <something>. (As I understand it, RONR is superseded.)

2. The organization's bylaws specifically permit something. (As I understand it, RONR is superceded.)

3. The organization's bylaws are silent on an issue while a relevant external authority, definitely not the organization's own bylaws, permits <something> but does not require <something>. (This is the root of my question - I have no idea what happens in this situation.)

QUESTION: Under situation 3, if RONR forbids <something> may the organization in question do <something> on grounds that it is permitted by a relevant external authority and still be in compliance with RONR - and thus its own bylaws?

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

You need to ask a lawyer about this state statute and how it affects parliamentary procedure in your state. We can't practice law on this forum.

[Robert B Fish]

3. The organization's bylaws are silent on an issue while a relevant external authority, definitely not the organization's own bylaws, permits <something> but does not require <something>. (This is the root of my question - I have no idea what happens in this situation.)

QUESTION: Under situation 3, if RONR forbids <something> may the organization in question do <something> on grounds that it is permitted by a relevant external authority and still be in compliance with RONR - and thus its own bylaws?

You stated the rule in the form RONR ... <something>. This is a special case because RONR says, in very strong terms, that you may not have teleconference meetings, e-mail meetings or similar meetings without a specific provision in your bylaws allowing you to do so and setting the needed procedures.

Laws (or bylaws for that matter) may or may not be difficult to understand. I recommend that you begin by reading the applicable statute yourself. If you can't locate the statute, contact the office of your state's secretary of state. If it's confusing, contact an attorney who is familiar with issues like these (most aren't) and hopefully is also familiar with RONR.

-Bob

[Shmuel Gerber]

3. The organization's bylaws are silent on an issue while a relevant external authority, definitely not the organization's own bylaws, permits <something> but does not require <something>. (This is the root of my question - I have no idea what happens in this situation.)

QUESTION: Under situation 3, if RONR forbids <something> may the organization in question do <something> on grounds that it is permitted by a relevant external authority and still be in compliance with RONR - and thus its own bylaws?

The answer depends on whether "permits <something>" means that it permits it to be permitted, or requires it to be permitted. And, in each case, there may be stated exceptions or stated methods of changing the default condition.

To put it more simply, the answer is, "It depends."

[Josh Martin]

1. The organization's bylaws or relevant external authorities such as city ordinances, state law, or federal law specifically forbid <something> or specifically require <something>. (As I understand it, RONR is superseded.)

Indeed (provided that in the case of laws, we are talking about applicable procedural rules in such laws).

2. The organization's bylaws specifically permit something. (As I understand it, RONR is superceded.)

Indeed.

3. The organization's bylaws are silent on an issue while a relevant external authority, definitely not the organization's own bylaws, permits <something> but does not require <something>. (This is the root of my question - I have no idea what happens in this situation.)

QUESTION: Under situation 3, if RONR forbids <something> may the organization in question do <something> on grounds that it is permitted by a relevant external authority and still be in compliance with RONR - and thus its own bylaws?

As Mr. Gerber says, "it depends." Try and see if the following passages shed any light on how this subject is treated in parliamentary law: RONR, 10th ed., pg. 414, line 32 - pg. 415, line 2; pg. 561, line 32 - pg. 562, line 2; pg. 562, footnote.

As noted, if you have any questions about how to interpret those passages in reference to a particular law, you should seek legal advice.

[wfdickjr]

My sincere thanks to all. Special thanks to Mr. Gerber for making a distinction that had not even occurred to me. Very special thanks as well to Mr. Martin for the many highly pertinent references to RONR. I am very much obliged to all. At the risk of annoying all who have been so helpful, I will try to summarize my current understanding of the process as a series of questions that must be answered. (I do understand that only competent legal advice can answer any of these questions definitively. I also understand that I probably still am missing something important but this is my best shot.)

The first question regards authority. Does any relevant authority speak to this issue in any way? If not, make your own decision. If yes, continue to the question of applicability.

Do the pronouncements of this authority or authorities apply to you and to your issue? If not, make your own decision. If yes, continue to the question of number of authorities.

Do the pronouncements of more than one authority apply to you and to your issue? If only one, decide as this one authority requires or allows. If yes, continue to the question of discrepancy.

Do the pronouncements of these authorities match each other in all substantive ways? If yes, decide accordingly. If not, continue to the question of conflict.

Do the pronouncements of these authorities directly conflict with one another? (Example: one requires and the other forbids.) If yes, abide by the higher ranking authority. If not, continue to the question of restrictiveness.

Are the pronouncements of one authority more restrictive than the other? (Example: one allows but does not require while the other requires, forbids or restricts.) If so, abide by the more restrictive authority.

I think it is the proper disposition of the final question that throws people. If you think about it, however, this is the way we do everything. Even as children, we quickly learn that Dad saying "It's okay by me" will not override Mom's definite "No!"

[jstackpo]

"Are the pronouncements of one authority more restrictive than the other? (Example: one allows but does not require while the other requires, forbids or restricts.) If so, abide by the more restrictive authority."

Not exactly -- abide by the "higher ranking" authority. In the usual hierarchy (RONR. p. 9 ff.) RONR is at the bottom.

You dad/mom example isn't pertinent: those two (at least in western societies) are considered co-equal.

[Josh Martin]

"Are the pronouncements of one authority more restrictive than the other? (Example: one allows but does not require while the other requires, forbids or restricts.) If so, abide by the more restrictive authority."

Not exactly -- abide by the "higher ranking" authority. In the usual hierarchy (RONR. p. 9 ff.) RONR is at the bottom.

I don't see what's wrong with his "more restrictive" theory. If two levels of rules differ, but both can be followed, then both should be followed. This can be accomplished by following the most restrictive rule. For instance, if an organization has a Constitution and Bylaws and the Constitution requires at least 15 days of notice and the Bylaws require at least 30 days, then both requirements can be satisfied by providing at least 30 days of notice. The question of "higher ranking" comes into play when it is not possible to follow both sets of rules.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I don't see what's wrong with his "more restrictive" theory. If two levels of rules differ, but both can be followed, then both should be followed. This can be accomplished by following the most restrictive rule. For instance, if an organization has a Constitution and Bylaws and the Constitution requires at least 15 days of notice and the Bylaws require at least 30 days, then both requirements can be satisfied by providing at least 30 days of notice. The question of "higher ranking" comes into play when it is not possible to follow both sets of rules.

But, in your example, since the Constitution supersedes the Bylaws, why would the provision in the Bylaws have any effect? If the Constitution requires at least 15 days' notice, that means that notice of less than 15 days is not valid, but also that notice of 15 days or more is valid.

[wfdickjr]

But, in your example, since the Constitution supersedes the Bylaws, why would the provision in the Bylaws have any effect? If the Constitution requires at least 15 days' notice, that means that notice of less than 15 days is not valid, but also that notice of 15 days or more is valid.

First, thanks so much to all who have taken this seriously. Your comments are of tremendous help.

Mr. Gerber, I think you may have answered your own question in your first insightful comment. I think this is a question of permitted or required to be permitted.

In Mr. Martin's example, the Constitution requires a minimum notice of 15 days to be valid but, by my reading, does not say that a notice of more than 15 days must be accepted. Thus the Constitution and the bylaws are not in conflict and the bylaws are not superseded.

Another possible example is that of a boss, a manager, and an employee. The boss tells the employee that he has no more than an hour to get the job done or else. The manager tells the employee that he has no more than thirty minutes to get the job done or else. The manager and the boss are not in conflict and the employee has no more than half an hour to get the job done. On the other hand, if the boss had told the employee that he had no more than an hour but at least an hour, the manager would have been in conflict with the boss and the boss's order would supersede that of the manager.

I don't claim to be a parliamentarian. I am a programmer by trade. For me, is purely a question of if-then logic. I may have the facts wrong and may be making a logical error, as I often do, but as I understand this situation, rank only comes into play if there is conflict. Rank is not a factor when there is merely a difference.

[Shmuel Gerber]

First, thanks so much to all who have taken this seriously. Your comments are of tremendous help.

Mr. Gerber, I think you may have answered your own question in your first insightful comment. I think this is a question of permitted or required to be permitted.

In Mr. Martin's example, the Constitution requires a minimum notice of 15 days to be valid but, by my reading, does not say that a notice of more than 15 days must be accepted. Thus the Constitution and the bylaws are not in conflict and the bylaws are not superseded.

We don't have particular language to go by in Mr. Martin's example, which of course could change the answer, but in general I disagree.

See Principle of Interpretation #6 in RONR (10th ed.), p. 572, ll. 9-27:

"A prohibition or limitation prohibits everything greater than what is prohibited, or that goes beyond the limitation; but it permits what is less than the limitation, and also permits things of the same class that are not mentioned in the prohibition or limitation and that are evidently not improper. ..."

[wfdickjr]

We don't have particular language to go by in Mr. Martin's example, which of course could change the answer, but in general I disagree.

See Principle of Interpretation #6 in RONR (10th ed.), p. 572, ll. 9-27:

"A prohibition or limitation prohibits everything greater than what is prohibited, or that goes beyond the limitation; but it permits what is less than the limitation, and also permits things of the same class that are not mentioned in the prohibition or limitation and that are evidently not improper. ..."

I will leave it to you parliamentarians to sort through this particular example! For me, is almost impossible to get my head around because less is actually more. It is a bit like trying to drive by looking in mirror - that is why I chose the boss/manager/employee example. Thanks so much for your help!

[Josh Martin]

We don't have particular language to go by in Mr. Martin's example, which of course could change the answer, but in general I disagree.

See Principle of Interpretation #6 in RONR (10th ed.), p. 572, ll. 9-27:

"A prohibition or limitation prohibits everything greater than what is prohibited, or that goes beyond the limitation; but it permits what is less than the limitation, and also permits things of the same class that are not mentioned in the prohibition or limitation and that are evidently not improper. ..."

Okay, backing away from my perhaps poorly-chosen example, is there any merit to the general theory that if two rules differ but do not conflict that the more restrictive rule should be followed? I am suggesting, at best, that it may be a guideline, not an all-encompassing rule.

[wfdickjr]

Okay, backing away from my perhaps poorly-chosen example, is there any merit to the general theory that if two rules differ but do not conflict that the more restrictive rule should be followed? I am suggesting, at best, that it may be a guideline, not an all-encompassing rule.

I am sorry to jump in on your question to Mr. Gerber but your question made me think of another one. Is there any time a rule may not be followed other than when it is in conflict with a higher authority?

[David A Foulkes]

The bylaws may authorize teleconference or Special meetings, but that does not mean the assembly is required to hold them, but simply allowed to should they desire. If (the higher) state law authorizes teleconference meetings, is that not enough to allow the assembly to hold them?

If the bylaws explicitly disallowed them, would not the state law supersede the bylaws? And if the bylaws were silent yet RONR (which disallows them) was the adopted PA, would not the state law still supersede?

[Shmuel Gerber]

Okay, backing away from my perhaps poorly-chosen example, is there any merit to the general theory that if two rules differ but do not conflict that the more restrictive rule should be followed? I am suggesting, at best, that it may be a guideline, not an all-encompassing rule.

The applicable criterion for determining the validity of the lower-ranking rule is whether it is "not inconsistent" with the higher-ranking one. I think that in general, if the two rules address the same question (i.e., refer to things "of the same class"), then if one is more restrictive than the other, this implies that they are inconsistent.

As another example, if the constitution specifies certain eligibility requirements for an office, this generally would imply (although it might depend on the exact wording) that all persons who meet those requirements are eligible to hold the office. Therefore, the bylaws could not mandate additional requirements, as this would conflict with the rule in the constitution.

[wfdickjr]

The applicable criterion for determining the validity of the lower-ranking rule is whether it is "not inconsistent" with the higher-ranking one. I think that in general, if the two rules address the same question (i.e., refer to things "of the same class"), then if one is more restrictive than the other, this implies that they are inconsistent.

As another example, if the constitution specifies certain eligibility requirements for an office, this generally would imply (although it might depend on the exact wording) that all persons who meet those requirements are eligible to hold the office. Therefore, the bylaws could not mandate additional requirements, as this would conflict with the rule in the constitution.

I think the logical divide here depends upon whether the Constitution is determined to be specifying a minimum requirement, a maximum requirement, or both. If the specified requirement is a minimum requirement or a maximum requirement, I do not see how it would be inconsistent or in conflict to augment those requirements in the same direction. If these are both the minimum and the maximum requirements, as one might expect with a Constitution, then I agree with you - it would be inconsistent or in conflict to amplify them in any way.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I think the logical divide here depends upon whether the Constitution is determined to be specifying a minimum requirement, a maximum requirement, or both. If the specified requirement is a minimum requirement or a maximum requirement, I do not see how it would be inconsistent or in conflict to augment those requirements in the same direction. If these are both the minimum and the maximum requirements, as one might expect with a Constitution, then I agree with you - it would be inconsistent or in conflict to amplify them in any way.

You make a good point. However, confusion about this often arises in regard to terms such as "at least", "at most", "not less than," etc. The use of such a term does not of itself imply that the requirement is a variable one that may be altered by a lower-level rule. As yet another example, if the constitution specifies that "Prospective members shall be admitted to the Society upon the vote of not less than two-thirds of the Senior Members present and voting," this doesn't mean that the bylaws can require a three-fourths vote on the theory that three-fourths is not less than two-thirds.

[George Mervosh]

Nice, SG.

[Josh Martin]

Is there any time a rule may not be followed other than when it is in conflict with a higher authority?

No. Provided that the rule is validly adopted, the only reason the rule would be out of order would be due to conflict with a higher-level rule. See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 10, lines 11-20.