Ex officio members to be informed of meeting

[Guest Douglas Greene]

If an ex officio member is not informed of a committee meeting and therefore does not attend, is that meeting legitimate?

[Chris Harrison]

Yes, the meeting would still be valid. However, if there were any votes where her vote could have affected whether the motion was adopted or defeated then that vote is null and void because the rights of the member were violated (RONR p. 251[e]).

[Guest Edgar]

Yes, the meeting would still be valid.

And here I was about to say, "probably not". Go figure.

[Trina]

Yes, what actions of the meeting are legitimate? It seems any and all actions would be null and void due to violation of the rights of absentees (the p. 251(e) citation). What can the meeting properly do?

Chris H., are you saying there is some difference because it is a meeting of a committee?

It can't be your position that failing to notify some members of a meeting only leads to a continuing breach if those members' votes could have directly led to a different vote outcome?? (For one thing, the un-notified member might have single-handedly changed the outcome by what he had to say during debate... and he, and the assembly, were not given that potential opportunity).

[jstackpo]

And in case Guest_Douglas is a little confused by all this, an ex-officio member is just as much a committee member as any other. "Ex officio" describes how he got ON the committee; it in no way limits his rights, &c., as a member.

[Burke Balch]

(For one thing, the un-notified member might have single-handedly changed the outcome by what he had to say during debate... and he, and the assembly, were not given that potential opportunity).

Take a look at page 252, line 19 through page 253, line 3 -- new in the 11th edition.

[jstackpo]

So... absent a timely point of order, the (obvious) inability of the absent member (absent because not notified) to contribute to the debate is not sufficient to invalidate a decision, now matter how convincing the debater might have been.

Well, OK, if them's the rules... (which they is). (I hadn't reached p. 252 in my rereading yet.)

Seems to denigrate the power of logical and forceful discourse to an undue amount, particularly since that power is recognized by an immediate point of order.

[Trina]

Take a look at page 252, line 19 through page 253, line 3 -- new in the 11th edition.

Very interesting... and right after p. 251, at that . Not much excuse for missing it, I guess.

Do you care to comment on why this new language was introduced? It seems to water down the rights of absentees, and to invite abuse (intentionally leaving out some members when calling a meeting, since it's easier to get away with it now). Sorry to put it so bluntly, but that's how it looks on first reading .

further edited to add:

Even if the members present think it is egregious not to notify all members of a meeting, it's quite possible none of them would realize there was a defect in the call, and, therefore, wouldn't make a timely point of order. It isn't just the absent member (who obviously can't raise a timely point of order) who misses out on challenging the error, but also the present members (who might well be unaware of the problem in a timely way).

[Dan Honemann]

I would refer to RONR, 11th ed. page 503, lines 14-28.

[jstackpo]

V

Sorry to put it so bluntly, but that's how it looks on first reading .

Trina is definitely using "logical and forceful discourse" in this instance. (As in the other times we hear from her.)

[jstackpo]

I would refer to RONR, 11th ed. page 503, lines 14-28.

I, for one, don't see how rules about committee reports is apposite to the matter at hand, the inability of an (involuntary) absentee to contribute to debate.

[Chris Harrison]

I would refer to RONR, 11th ed. page 503, lines 14-28.

So would the failure to include all committee members invalidate the meeting itself or merely mean that a report can't be presented to the assembly on behalf of the committee?

[Dan Honemann]

I, for one, don't see how rules about committee reports is apposite to the matter at hand, the inability of an (involuntary) absentee to contribute to debate.

I didn't know that the matter at hand was somehow limited to "the inability of an (involuntary) absentee to contribute to debate."

[Dan Honemann]

So would the failure to include all committee members invalidate the meeting itself or merely mean that a report can't be presented to the assembly on behalf of the committee?

I think that failure to give proper notice invalidates the meeting.

[jstackpo]

I didn't know that the matter at hand was somehow limited to "the inability of an (involuntary) absentee to contribute to debate."

That is what, near as I can tell, Balch brought up back at #6, above.

I realize, in looking back, that the original question involved a committee meeting, but the discussion seemed to expand to "absentee rights" in general, and some of its ramifications.

Next time, new thread!

[Dan Honemann]

That is what, near as I can tell, Balch brought up back at #6, above.

No, Trina brought it up in #4.

I realize, in looking back, that the original question involved a committee meeting, but the discussion seemed to expand to "absentee rights" in general, and some of its ramifications.

I thought it stuck to committee meetings rather well, myself.

[Trina]

I would refer to RONR, 11th ed. page 503, lines 14-28.

In case Mr. Greene (the original poster) is confused by the various opinions presented in this thread:

'... a report of a board or committee can contain only what has been agreed to by a majority vote at a regular or properly called meeting of which every member has been notified ... where a quorum of the board or committee was present.' (RONR p. 503 ll. 16-21). There is more that is worth reading there, as you will see if you look up the citation.

Mr. Greene, have your concerns been addressed by the various responses that followed your original question? Please post again, if not.