Guest Allen Posted December 15, 2011 at 04:19 AM Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 at 04:19 AM If we use telecommunications to meet and vote, is it required to have specific bylaws (equipment, voting procedures, etc)? Or is it only recommended to have specific bylaws established Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted December 15, 2011 at 04:46 AM Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 at 04:46 AM Any form of absentee voting needs to be specifically authorized in the bylaws in order to be valid (RONR pp. 423-424) with the adoption of any necessary Special Rules and Standing Rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Allen Posted December 15, 2011 at 05:53 AM Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 at 05:53 AM How specific do the bylaws need to be? Our bylaws recognize "telecommunications". No other reference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 15, 2011 at 06:03 AM Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 at 06:03 AM How specific do the bylaws need to be? Our bylaws recognize "telecommunications". No other referenceA general statement authorizing teleconferences is sufficient for the purposes of the Bylaws. It is appropriate to use Special Rules of Order and Standing Rules to cover the specifics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 15, 2011 at 11:57 AM Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 at 11:57 AM A general statement authorizing teleconferences is sufficient for the purposes of the Bylaws. It is appropriate to use Special Rules of Order and Standing Rules to cover the specifics.Except... There should be a bylaw definition of an electronic "quorum". The usual meaning gets a little dicey when nobody is present in the same room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 15, 2011 at 01:21 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 at 01:21 PM Except... There should be a bylaw definition of an electronic "quorum". The usual meaning gets a little dicey when nobody is present in the same room.Based upon what is said on pages 97-99 of RONR (11th ed.), inclusion in the bylaws of a special definition of an electronic "quorum" is not required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 15, 2011 at 02:49 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 at 02:49 PM Based upon what is said on pages 97-99 of RONR (11th ed.), inclusion in the bylaws of a special definition of an electronic "quorum" is not required.But since there's no default value in RONR, or rather there is no way to apply the default value, it would still be a Good Idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 15, 2011 at 02:50 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 at 02:50 PM Based upon what is said on pages 97-99 of RONR (11th ed.), inclusion in the bylaws of a special definition of an electronic "quorum" is not required.Quite so, but those cited pages refer to electronic meetings, such as telephone, video conferencing, and the like, that fit the "simultaneous aural communication" model.I had in mind the (increassingly common) practice of meetings held by e-mail, (more like the U.S. Revolution's "Committees of Correspondence", but with somewhat updated technology) and I should have made that clear at the outset. But let us not renew (for now) the argument as to whether such meetings can be treated as "deliberative assemblies". I don't know what Guerst_Allen had in mind in his original question.As a side, but related question, p. 97, line 22, refers to the "Internet". Do you know what the A-Team had in mind with that reference? Skype? Something else? E-Mail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted December 15, 2011 at 10:37 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 at 10:37 PM If we use telecommunications to meet and vote, is it required to have specific bylaws (equipment, voting procedures, etc)? Or is it only recommended to have specific bylaws establishedHow specific do the bylaws need to be? Our bylaws recognize "telecommunications". No other referenceSpecific enough to answer all the questions that will arise and inevitably lead you back here for answers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted December 15, 2011 at 11:21 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 at 11:21 PM As a side, but related question, p. 97, line 22, refers to the "Internet". Do you know what the A-Team had in mind with that reference?Something to do with tubes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 15, 2011 at 11:31 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 at 11:31 PM As a side, but related question, p. 97, line 22, refers to the "Internet". Do you know what the A-Team had in mind with that reference? Skype? Something else? E-Mail?Well, I suspect that it refers to technologies using the Internet which meet the criteria specified in the following sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Allen Posted December 16, 2011 at 02:35 PM Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 at 02:35 PM Turns out that telecommunication quidlines for meetings are discussed in state code. We did not follow the code. What happens to all the work that we accomplished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted December 16, 2011 at 02:42 PM Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 at 02:42 PM Turns out that telecommunication quidlines for meetings are discussed in state code. We did not follow the code. What happens to all the work that we accomplished?As I just posted on your other thread, that depends on whether the code in question lays out a 'procedural rule' (i.e. a rule having to do with parliamentary procedure), and also whether the code does actually apply to an organization which has authorized use of telecommunications in its bylaws.edited to add:Are there many past decisions that appear to be in jeopardy because proper procedure was not followed? And, reading your post more carefully, do you mean that the state code lays out details of how to conduct meetings using telecommunications, and that your organization did not follow those detailed rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Allen Posted December 16, 2011 at 04:29 PM Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 at 04:29 PM Yes, we did not realize that we contradicted the state code Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 17, 2011 at 01:29 AM Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 at 01:29 AM Yes, we did not realize that we contradicted the state codeAnd how soon will you be having a regular or special in-person meeting at which it might be possible to Ratify the decisions made improperly at the arguably illegal meeting?That's your best Plan B at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.