Guest Joe Healey Posted August 10, 2012 at 08:03 PM Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 at 08:03 PM If I am "attending" a board meeting only by Skype, am I " present" and allowed to vote? Our by laws have no provision for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted August 10, 2012 at 09:33 PM Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 at 09:33 PM No (RONR pp. 423-424).Ah, the marvels of modern technology. In about 10 years tech is going to be so advanced that no one is going to have to leave the house for anything (we can pretty much do that even today). Need groceries, have the local store deliver them. Need to have a meeting, there are so many programs out there to have simultaneous videoconferencing . Need to work, you can video or teleconference and have your calls routed to your cell or home phone and the computer can have access to the company server so anything you can access at work you can access at home. Need a doctor, WebMd probably will come out with a BodyWorks platform that you can plug into a USB port where it can take your blood pressure, blood (or other) samples, X-rays, do an EKG and listen to the heart and lungs, then analyze the results and send them on to some doctor in Tasmania who will then discuss things with you by email or video-conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted August 10, 2012 at 10:56 PM Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 at 10:56 PM If I am "attending" a board meeting only by Skype, am I " present" and allowed to vote? Our by laws have no provision for this.No, you're not attending, you're not present, you do not count toward a quorum, and you're not allowed to vote.Unless such practices are allowed in your bylaws, they are prohibited by RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted August 11, 2012 at 03:37 PM Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 at 03:37 PM No, unless the By-laws specifically provide for members to attend by teleconference/videoconference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMargaret Posted August 11, 2012 at 03:48 PM Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 at 03:48 PM Don't mess around with just teleconference/videoconference:"A Queen's University researcher has created a Star Trek-like human-scale 3D videoconferencing pod that allows people in different locations to video conference as if they are standing in front of each other. "Why Skype when you can talk to a life-size 3D holographic image of another person?" says professor Roel Vertegaal, director of the Human Media Lab."In answer to the original question, Robert's Rules default is to not allow people to meet other than in person. If you want to meet by Skype, telephone, email, or holodeck, you need to have this explicitly laid out in your bylaws, with all details covered. Leave the specific technology unnamed, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted August 11, 2012 at 05:52 PM Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 at 05:52 PM Robert's Rules default is to not allow people to meet other than in person. If you want to meet by Skype, telephone, email, or holodeck, you need to have this explicitly laid out in your bylaws, with all details covered. Leave the specific technology unnamed, however.And whatever you choose should meet the basic minimum criteria laid out in RONR. See pages 97-99 for tips and pitfalls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Louise Posted August 11, 2012 at 07:17 PM Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 at 07:17 PM Would I be correct in assuming that it is "out of order" to have one (otherwise absent) Board member "attend" a meeting by phone if arrangements have not been made to allow/enable other absent Board members to do so as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted August 11, 2012 at 07:29 PM Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 at 07:29 PM Would I be correct in assuming that it is "out of order" to have one (otherwise absent) Board member "attend" a meeting by phone if arrangements have not been made to allow/enable other absent Board members to do so as well?Yes. When you put "attend" in quotation marks you've answered your own question.Some things simply don't pass the smell test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted August 11, 2012 at 07:31 PM Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 at 07:31 PM Would I be correct in assuming that it is "out of order" to have one (otherwise absent) Board member "attend" a meeting by phone if arrangements have not been made to allow/enable other absent Board members to do so as well?I should have added that those "arrangements" would have to include amendments to your bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Louise Posted August 11, 2012 at 08:07 PM Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 at 08:07 PM Yes. When you put "attend" in quotation marks you've answered your own question.Some things simply don't pass the smell test.Thank you for verfiying what my instincts were telling me. I should have added that those "arrangements" would have to include amendments to your bylaws.Yes. If the bylaws do not allow for such a meeting, then such an occurrence is out of order in both respects (such meetings not being permitted by the bylaws, and allowing for only a certain absent member to take part in that meeting).RONR is looking less and less scary the more I read and learn about them. It. Them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted August 11, 2012 at 08:21 PM Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 at 08:21 PM RONR is looking less and less scary the more I read and learn about them. It. Them.As RONR In Brief acknowledges, 90% of the time you'll use only 10% of RONR.Or, perhaps more accurately, "At least 80 percent of the content of RONR will be needed less than 20 percent of the time."q2UYtb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted August 11, 2012 at 10:55 PM Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 at 10:55 PM RONR is looking less and less scary the more I read and learn about them. It. Them.Give it time, Louise. When you're feeling comfy with it all, take a look at Section 12. That ought to bring the scare back for ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted August 12, 2012 at 04:14 PM Report Share Posted August 12, 2012 at 04:14 PM No (RONR pp. 423-424).Ah, the marvels of modern technology. In about 10 years tech is going to be so advanced that no one is going to have to leave the house for anything (we can pretty much do that even today). Need groceries, have the local store deliver them. . . .Looks like the delivery guy is still going to have to leave the house. :-)(And the Internet/cable guy, and the server tech guy, . . . ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted August 12, 2012 at 04:15 PM Report Share Posted August 12, 2012 at 04:15 PM Looks like the delivery guy is still going to have to leave the house. :-)(And the Internet/cable guy, and the server tech guy, . . . )Nah, we will have androids to take care of that stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Louise Posted August 12, 2012 at 04:17 PM Report Share Posted August 12, 2012 at 04:17 PM Looks like the delivery guy is still going to have to leave the house. :-)(And the Internet/cable guy, and the server tech guy, . . . )Won't the robots be able to do all of those mundane tasks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Louise Posted August 12, 2012 at 04:19 PM Report Share Posted August 12, 2012 at 04:19 PM Give it time, Louise. When you're feeling comfy with it all, take a look at Section 12. That ought to bring the scare back for ya.Oh.Goody.Thank you for the encouragment, Mr. Foulkes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.