Leo Posted July 7, 2012 at 06:15 PM Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 at 06:15 PM Page 448, line 5, sates "If a person holds an office in a society of which he is not a member and the bylaws make that officer an ex-officio member of the board, the nonmember is thereby a full fledged board member with all the accompanying rights; but this does not make him a member of the society."Can this rule be applied to the assembly at meetings?It would read as follows"If a person holds an office in a society of which he is not a member and the bylaws make that officer an ex-officio member of the assembly, the nonmember is thereby a full fledged assembly member with all the accompanying rights; but this does not make him a member of the society." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 7, 2012 at 06:25 PM Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 at 06:25 PM Can this rule be applied to the assembly at meetings?No. The term "assembly" does not describe an official body (e.g. the board or the general membership (aka "the Society")), it simply applies to the collection of members present at a meeting (of the body of which those persons are members). So to say that someone is a "member of the assembly" is either redundant or meaningless.You become a member of "the assembly" by attending the meeting of the body of which you are already a member of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted July 8, 2012 at 01:53 AM Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 at 01:53 AM Page 448, line 5, sates "If a person holds an office in a society of which he is not a member and the bylaws make that officer an ex-officio member of the board, the nonmember is thereby a full fledged board member with all the accompanying rights; but this does not make him a member of the society."Can this rule be applied to the assembly at meetings?It would read as follows"If a person holds an office in a society of which he is not a member and the bylaws make that officer an ex-officio member of the assembly, the nonmember is thereby a full fledged assembly member with all the accompanying rights; but this does not make him a member of the society."Well, not exactly.For example, unless the bylaws forbid it, a non-member may hold the office of president or secretary in a society, and might have duties with respect to meetings of the general assembly of the society--the president presumably to preside over meetings, and the secretary to record them, at least. But since they are not members of the society, then they are not "members" of the assembly. They may not make motions, speak in debate, or vote--not even to make or break a tie. They are officers of it, but not members of it, ex-officio or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 8, 2012 at 01:05 PM Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 at 01:05 PM . . . with respect to meetings of the general assembly of the society . . .Though I would avoid the use of the word "assembly" in this context (since, as suggested, a "meeting of the assembly" is redundant). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 8, 2012 at 01:26 PM Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 at 01:26 PM "Meeting of the assembly" is indeed pleonastic.But "member of the assembly" is clearly defined on p. 3.Given that definition I'd say that an "ex-officio member of the assembly" is a legit (if somewhat awkward) possibility. He IS entitled to vote, move, &c. in the assembly as if he was a full member of the association. But he's not a member of the association so not entitled to whatever perks a member gets as an association member, outside of meetings - so neither fish nor foul.Best to get that out of the bylaws as it isn't all that clear what is meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 8, 2012 at 05:52 PM Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 at 05:52 PM Page 448, line 5, sates "If a person holds an office in a society of which he is not a member and the bylaws make that officer an ex-officio member of the board, the nonmember is thereby a full fledged board member with all the accompanying rights; but this does not make him a member of the society."Can this rule be applied to the assembly at meetings?It would read as follows"If a person holds an office in a society of which he is not a member and the bylaws make that officer an ex-officio member of the assembly, the nonmember is thereby a full fledged assembly member with all the accompanying rights; but this does not make him a member of the society."Yes. The bylaws would thus be making an exception to the rule in RONR (11th ed.) at page 6, lines 10-21. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 8, 2012 at 07:53 PM Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 at 07:53 PM Yes. The bylaws would thus be making an exception to the rule in RONR (11th ed.) at page 6, lines 10-21.Well, if you're saying that a society can adopt a meaningless rule, that one thing.But two things are required in order to be a member of the assembly. You have to be present and you have to be a member of the body that is meeting. This proposed rule is stating that, in effect, it's enough for this ex-officio "member of the assembly" to merely be present. Okay, so maybe it's not meaningless. But it's weird. Since he's not a member of the body that's meeting he has no right to attend. But if he should somehow find his way into the meeting room he becomes, as if by magic, a member of the assembly (with the attendant rights to remain, make motions, engage in debate, and vote). But once he leaves the room he has no right to return (since he's not a member of the body that is meeting). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 8, 2012 at 08:03 PM Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 at 08:03 PM Sure he has a right to attend: p. 3, line 4.But he may not have any right to get a notice of the meeting, since that is something that takes place outside of the actual meeting.Weird? Complete agreement here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 8, 2012 at 08:09 PM Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 at 08:09 PM Sure he has a right to attend: p. 3, line 4.Well, okay. I feel like my firm footing is increasingly slippery so I'm going to quite while I'm, well, behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 8, 2012 at 09:41 PM Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 at 09:41 PM But two things are required in order to be a member of the assembly. You have to be present and you have to be a member of the body that is meeting. This proposed rule is stating that, in effect, it's enough for this ex-officio "member of the assembly" to merely be present. Okay, so maybe it's not meaningless. But it's weird. Since he's not a member of the body that's meeting he has no right to attend. But if he should somehow find his way into the meeting room he becomes, as if by magic, a member of the assembly (with the attendant rights to remain, make motions, engage in debate, and vote). But once he leaves the room he has no right to return (since he's not a member of the body that is meeting).I don't really understand your point, and I think you're making this way too complicated. Look again at that paragraph on page 6 -- and at your own reply here:http://robertsrules....dpost__p__80297As Leo's question makes clear, the society is one thing and the assembly of its members at meetings is another. There is usually a one-to-one correspondence between "persons who are recorded on the rolls of the society as voting members" and the entire membership of the assembly (including absentees). But the bylaws may provide otherwise, as by making an officer who is not a member of the society into an ex-officio member of the assembly; or some persons may be not "in good standing" as members of the assembly although still members of the society. In the latter case, one might still have privileges as a member of the society (e.g., being able to dock his boat at the yacht club, or to smoke in the gazebo); and in the former case, the officer may be able to cast a vote at a meeting but would be promptly tossed overboard if caught at the slips (preferably after the crocodiles have been fed, or else there could be a vacancy in office pretty soon, regardless of when the next term of office is supposed to begin). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:00 PM Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:00 PM There is usually a one-to-one correspondence between "persons who are recorded on the rolls of the society as voting members" and the entire membership of the assembly (including absentees).It's the "entire membership of the assembly (including absentees)" that makes my head hurt. How can absentees, who are not assembled, be considered members of the assembly? But that's a question for me, not you, and I'm going to sleep on it. Or next to it. Or in the next room. Or maybe down the hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:16 PM Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:16 PM It's the "entire membership of the assembly (including absentees)" that makes my head hurt. How can absentees, who are not assembled, be considered members of the assembly?Well, if they're not members, how could they be absentees?I wasn't present at the last meeting of Congress, but I certainly wasn't an "absentee." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:34 PM Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:34 PM It's the "entire membership of the assembly (including absentees)" that makes my head hurt. How can absentees, who are not assembled, be considered members of the assembly? But that's a question for me, not you, and I'm going to sleep on it. Or next to it. Or in the next room. Or maybe down the hall.It is an easy mistake to think of the "assembly" as being those present in a meeting; I've done it myself. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 496, ll. 1-8, for a good example of the word "assembly" used to mean more than the members present in a meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM Though I would avoid the use of the word "assembly" in this context (since, as suggested, a "meeting of the assembly" is redundant).Actually, it's not. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 81, ll. 16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:59 PM Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 at 11:59 PM Looks like the meaning of "assembly" has shifted from p. 1, line 4 (the first line of text in the book!) where it is defined as a "gathering" or group of people in one place, &c. to p. 81 where it appears to mean the entire membership of an association of which a subset have come together in a "meeting".It is not the only shifty word in RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:19 AM Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:19 AM Looks like the meaning of "assembly" has shifted from p. 1, line 4 (the first line of text in the book!) where it is defined as a "gathering" or group of people in one place, &c. to p. 81 where it appears to mean the entire membership of an association of which a subset have come together in a "meeting".It is not the only shifty word in RONR.I think p. 2 ll. 25-28 sheds some light, and further amplifies the definition of assembly as those who are actually gathered (of course not counting absentees) and the event for which they are gathering, which is the meeting. And I think that's what p. 81 is trying to clarify - that those gathered are the assembly, and they have assembled at a meeting.But the light dims with the many times and ways the word assembly is tossed around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:30 AM Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:30 AM Looks like the meaning of "assembly" has shifted from p. 1, line 4 (the first line of text in the book!) where it is defined as a "gathering" or group of people in one place, &c. to p. 81 where it appears to mean the entire membership of an association of which a subset have come together in a "meeting".It is not the only shifty word in RONR.That first sentence ranges all the way to line 17 of page 2, where it ends with a discussion on absentees, careful to say "the members present" act for the entire membership. It also references a "formally organized assembly." Certainly this doesn't mean a gathering that has been called to order: that would be a meeting. I think you'll find that if this first description of a deliberative assembly is read in its entirety, there is no shift in the meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:38 AM Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:38 AM That first sentence ranges all the way to line 17 of page 2, where it ends with a discussion on absentees, careful to say "the members present" act for the entire membership. It also references a "formally organized assembly." Certainly this doesn't mean a gathering that has been called to order: that would be a meeting.I think you'll find that if this first description of a deliberative assembly is read in its entirety, there is no shift in the meaning.Okay, I'll agree, although I had always thought that the "assembly" referred to the members present at the meeting, and the "society" or "organization" referred to the entire membership. The shift occurs in the thinking, not the definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:41 AM Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:41 AM I think p. 2 ll. 25-28 sheds some light, and further amplifies the definition of assembly as those who are actually gathered (of course not counting absentees) and the event for which they are gathering, which is the meeting. And I think that's what p. 81 is trying to clarify - that those gathered are the assembly, and they have assembled at a meeting.But the light dims with the many times and ways the word assembly is tossed around.Page 2, lines 25-28, make it clear that the assembly is "the body of people who assemble." When the word "body" is used in the book, it never means the specific members present in one particular meeting of an organized society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted July 9, 2012 at 11:26 AM Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 at 11:26 AM "Meeting of the assembly" is indeed pleonastic....Looks like the meaning of "assembly" has shifted from p. 1, line 4 (the first line of text in the book!) where it is defined as a "gathering" or group of people in one place, &c. to p. 81 where it appears to mean the entire membership of an association of which a subset have come together in a "meeting".It is not the only shifty word in RONR.So, not pleonastic after all? This thread has certainly gotten more interesting than I expected. Incidentally, I've never come across 'pleonastic' before (new words are always a bonus). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:11 PM Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:11 PM My favorite definition of "assembly" is found on page 14, lines 26-29:"The bylaws, by their nature, necessarily contain whatever limitations are placed on the powers of the assembly of a society (that is, the members attending a particular one of its meetings) with respect to the society as a whole." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 9, 2012 at 01:03 PM Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 at 01:03 PM So, per Dan (post #21) and p. 14, the "assembly" is the sub-set of all the members who choose to show up at a meeting.A "meeting of the assembly" is slightly, but not gravely, pleonastic in that it denotes the gathering, in one place, of those members who elected to gather together at the assigned time and place.In a convention (p. 83, lines 9-12) there is a subtle shift of meaning when the "adjournment [sine die] dissolves the assembly". The members attending don't all evaporate into thin air but the actual (convention) association (with the membership defined as those who are registered for the convention and named in the Credentials Committee report - Chapter XIX) ceases to exist. So here "assembly" does mean the "association", albeit a transient association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 9, 2012 at 01:14 PM Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 at 01:14 PM So, per Dan (post #21) and p. 14, the "assembly" is the sub-set of all the members who choose to show up at a meeting.A "meeting of the assembly" is slightly, but not gravely, pleonastic in that it denotes the gathering, in one place, of those members who elected to gather together at the assigned time and place.In a convention (p. 83, lines 9-12) there is a subtle shift of meaning when the "adjournment [sine die] dissolves the assembly". The members attending don't all evaporate into thin air but the actual (convention) association (with the membership defined as those who are registered for the convention and named in the Credentials Committee report - Chapter XIX) ceases to exist. So here "assembly" does mean the "association", albeit a transient association.A convention is not an association; it's an assembly. See p. 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 9, 2012 at 03:24 PM Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 at 03:24 PM Well, OK, but the people still don't evaporate.So in the phrase "dissolve the assembly", "assembly" has to have a different meaning than "the members attending". What's your word for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 9, 2012 at 03:57 PM Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 at 03:57 PM My favorite definition of "assembly" is found on page 14, lines 17-20*:"The bylaws, by their nature, necessarily contain whatever limitations are placed on the powers of the assembly of a society (that is, the members attending a particular one of its meetings) with respect to the society as a whole."*Correction: 26-29Oh, poor Edgar. Now he's really going to be confused. In the context of this thread, the important thing is that the society may (in its bylaws) confer upon certain people, who are not members of the society itself, all the rights of membership in the assembly of the society. Such membership rights do not appear the instant a person enters the meeting hall and disappear the moment he walks out the door. Indeed, they include the rights to be given notice of meetings and to attend the meetings (i.e., not be barred from entrance).It is possible to speak of, as RONR sometimes does, members of an assembly (a group of people attending a meeting) who are not actually attending the meeting. They are still members of the overall group of people who have membership rights in that assembly, although without the power to act on behalf of the group at the time. While the configuration of the assembly may vary from moment to moment based on attendance, its membership does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.