Joint Meetings

[Guest Joint Meeting]

I am the city manager/clerk in a small Michigan city. Every few years we hold a joint meeting with the local school board. In the past, this has been conducted as one meeting. It seems that the correct way to hold a joint meeting of two boards is to hold two simultaneous meetings in which both boards include in a joint session of the two bodies on their agenda. Unfortunately, I do not know if I am correct on this. I look to the more knowledgeable forum members to guide me on this.

Thank you.

[Josh Martin]

I am the city manager/clerk in a small Michigan city. Every few years we hold a joint meeting with the local school board. In the past, this has been conducted as one meeting. It seems that the correct way to hold a joint meeting of two boards is to hold two simultaneous meetings in which both boards include in a joint session of the two bodies on their agenda. Unfortunately, I do not know if I am correct on this. I look to the more knowledgeable forum members to guide me on this.

Joint meetings are not directly discussed in RONR (except in some very specialized circumstances which do not apply here).

Two methods I have previously considered to accomplish this purpose is for each body to establish a special committee consisting of all the members of both bodies or to call a mass meeting which invites all the members of both bodies. The latter approach seems fairly similar to what you've done in the past. More detailed methods would involve the adoption of appropriate special rules of order.

The "simultaneous meeting" idea is a poor one, since it would be quite messy, and simply having a "joint meeting" on the agenda doesn't make things any more formal than what you've been doing in the past, since RONR doesn't have any rules for what this means.

[J. J.]

Joint meetings are not directly discussed in RONR (except in some very specialized circumstances which do not apply here).

Two methods I have previously considered to accomplish this purpose is for each body to establish a special committee consisting of all the members of both bodies or to call a mass meeting which invites all the members of both bodies. The latter approach seems fairly similar to what you've done in the past. More detailed methods would involve the adoption of appropriate special rules of order.

I think the "mass meeting" would create a problem, because both boards are separate entities. The mass meeting would be a third assembly.

A committee made up of members of both boards would be better, but I still think their could be problems.

Assume that each board has 7 members and all are present. Motion A is pending. The City Board votes 3 yes and 4 no. The school board 7 to 0 in favor. The City Board voted against the motion, while this committee has 10 to 4 in favor of the motion. I would argue that the City Board did not adopt the motion.

[George Mervosh]

Assume that each board has 7 members and all are present. Motion A is pending. The City Board votes 3 yes and 4 no. The school board 7 to 0 in favor. The City Board voted against the motion, while this committee has 10 to 4 in favor of the motion. I would argue that the City Board did not adopt the motion.

I would argue neither adopted it. I don't see anything in Josh's suggestion to say the special committee was empowered to act for both bodies. The report of the special committee would go to both parent assemblies for consideration of any recommendations the joint special committee makes.

[Guest Edgar]

Assume that each board has 7 members and all are present. Motion A is pending. The City Board votes 3 yes and 4 no. The school board 7 to 0 in favor. The City Board voted against the motion, while this committee has 10 to 4 in favor of the motion. I would argue that the City Board did not adopt the motion.

Of course it didn't. Neither did the school board. The only body that could adopt a motion at a meeting of the committee is the committee. The boards aren't present.

{Note: Mr. Mervosh posted his reply as I was composing mine but I'm posting anyway so as not to waste all this typing.]

[J. J.]

I would argue neither adopted it. I don't see anything in Josh's suggestion to say the special committee was empowered to act for both bodies. The report of the special committee would go to both parent assemblies for consideration of any recommendations the joint special committee makes.

That is another point, though in theory, if this was properly called meeting of the school board, they could do it.

The optimal method would be for the joint committee to adopt something then report back to the separate bodies.

[George Mervosh]

The optimal method would be for the joint committee to adopt something then report back to the separate bodies.

I understood that to be what Josh was saying, but he'll be back later if I misunderstood.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Since the original poster hasn't said what the goal of having this "joint meeting" is, it's going to be rather hard to pin down how that goal might be accomplished.

[g40]

Since the original poster hasn't said what the goal of having this "joint meeting" is, it's going to be rather hard to pin down how that goal might be accomplished.

Yes, a more basic question is what is to be accomplished, and by which body. Might this meeting be best characterized as a joint work session"? or, perhaps, one board reporting or discussing with another?

[Gary Novosielski]

Joint sessions (like the recent one of both houses of congress to receive the State of the Union report) usually do not conduct business as such. They typically receive reports, sometimes have discussion on issues--but usually without moving any proposed action. Sometimes they will come up with recommendations for action, but conducting subtantive business is going to be a problem.

I think a good model would be something in the nature of a committee of the whole (perhaps the Committee of the Sum of the Parts?) similar to that suggested by Josh. The committee would rise and report (presumably identical reports) to the parent bodies, which would then be free to act, or not, as each saw fit.

[Josh Martin]

I understood that to be what Josh was saying, but he'll be back later if I misunderstood.

Yes, that was my intent.

[Guest John Michrina]

Wow, I am amazed at the quality and quantity of information provided. To clarify, the joint meeting will not go beyond discussion, and no decisions will be made at the meeting. I will make certain of that. A joint work session sounds like the way to go. If someone could give me a suggestion on how to put this into place, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you to everyone for your intelligent and insightful responses!

[George Mervosh]

A joint work session sounds like the way to go. If someone could give me a suggestion on how to put this into place, I would greatly appreciate it.

See post #2

[Guest Nancy N.]

[]Wow, I am amazed at the quality and quantity of information provided.

The world's premier parliamentary Internet forum is woefully unappreciated. And we keep saying that on the world's premier parliamentary Internet forum. (But you know what?)

To clarify, the joint meeting will not go beyond discussion, and no decisions will be made at the meeting.

Sounds good. No harm, no foul, as the zombies say when they go away hungry.

I will make certain of that.

You yourself? On your own, in the face of unexpected lunatic perverse attempts by the assembly to adopt motions or other ridiculous folderol? But perhaps I worry excessively. My zombies are hungry.

A joint work session sounds like the way to go. If someone could give me a suggestion on how to put this into place, I would greatly appreciate it.

An adopted motion at a meeting of both organizations would do it, no?

[Thank you to everyone for your intelligent and insightful responses!

Heh. Give us time.

[Guest Edgar]

An adopted motion at a meeting of both organizations would do it, no?

A meeting of both organizations? No.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Nancy N., on 18 February 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

An adopted motion at a meeting of both organizations would do it, no?

A meeting of both organizations? No.

Sorry. Yes, I did mean two motions, one at each meeting of both organizations. Each organization with its own motion, establishing its participation in the mutual chat-fest.

[Guest Joint Meetings]

Would it be incorrect for the joint body to make motions and vote on them?

If it is incorrect, and a member attempts to do just that (make a motion), and the Chair(s) permit the motion, call for debate, and then a vote, what is a member to do assuming he is the only member to understand this incorrect procedure? In otherwords, how might a member oppose the incorrect procedure, while simultaneously informing the board rather than appearing to be impeding business?

[Guest Edgar]

. . . what is a member to do assuming he is the only member to understand this incorrect procedure?

Ah, the loneliness of the long-distance parliamentarian.

Are you sure the two groups couldn't just get together without all the formal trappings of a meeting?

[J. J.]

Would it be incorrect for the joint body to make motions and vote on them?

Yes, though nothing would prevent each body from adopting such motions. The joint committee itself could adopt motions, but they would be binding on either the city or school board.

If it is incorrect, and a member attempts to do just that (make a motion), and the Chair(s) permit the motion, call for debate, and then a vote, what is a member to do assuming he is the only member to understand this incorrect procedure? In otherwords, how might a member oppose the incorrect procedure, while simultaneously informing the board rather than appearing to be impeding business?

Raise a point of order.

It might be better to discuss the matter prior to forming a joint meeting.

[Guest Joint Meetings]

Yes, though nothing would prevent each body from adopting such motions. The joint committee itself could adopt motions, but they would be binding on either the city or school board.

Do you mean adopted motions from the joint committee (not joint boards) would neither be binding on either board? Would adopted motions from the joint committee effectively be, in turn, likely be recommendations to either board that they would then each have to vote on independently?

What reference in RONR 11th addresses - if it does - two boards making themselves one? Or perhaps a better way to ask, if you sat on either of these board, and the boards decided they could come together and make decisions as one voting body (or two simultaneous ones) but you held that the boards should only meeting to take reports and not make motions or decisions, how would you handle it?

What principle of parliamentary procedure is being violated, if any, if the two boards decided to act as one board from time to time?

Thank you all for your help.

[George Mervosh]

Yes, though nothing would prevent each body from adopting such motions. The joint committee itself could adopt motions, but they would be binding on either the city or school board.

This business of dropping the 'not' has to end, right Ms. Summer?

[Guest Edgar]

The joint committee itself could adopt motions, but they would [not] be binding on either the city or school board.

Do you mean adopted motions from the joint committee (not joint boards) would neither be binding on either board?

This business of dropping the 'not' has to end, right Ms. Summer?

Really. Enough is surely enough. The "Preview Post" button is there for a reason.

[Josh Martin]

Would it be incorrect for the joint body to make motions and vote on them?

No, but any such motions are simply recommendations.

Do you mean adopted motions from the joint committee (not joint boards) would neither be binding on either board?

Yeah, I think J. J. meant that they would not be binding.

Would adopted motions from the joint committee effectively be, in turn, likely be recommendations to either board that they would then each have to vote on independently?

Yes.

What reference in RONR 11th addresses - if it does - two boards making themselves one?

As I noted in Post #2, there is no such reference... except in some very special circumstances that don't apply here.

Or perhaps a better way to ask, if you sat on either of these board, and the boards decided they could come together and make decisions as one voting body (or two simultaneous ones) but you held that the boards should only meeting to take reports and not make motions or decisions, how would you handle it?

Motions are fine, but they should be treated as recommendations. If the board attempted to treat the motions of the joint meeting as the final action of the board I'd raise a Point of Order, and an Appeal if necessary. If this didn't work, it might be wise to consult a lawyer. I have a feeling that in the case of public bodies, trying to have a "joint meeting" act for the boards might run afoul of applicable law as well.

What principle of parliamentary procedure is being violated, if any, if the two boards decided to act as one board from time to time?

The principle that only members can vote, since such a practice would effectively mean that each board would be granting the right to vote to non-members.

[Guest Joint Meetings]

Thank you, the "n" and the "not" make much more sense.

[Guest Joint Meetings]

Motions are fine, but they should be treated as recommendations. If the board attempted to treat the motions of the joint meeting as the final action of the board I'd raise a Point of Order, and an Appeal if necessary. If this didn't work, it might be wise to consult a lawyer. I have a feeling that in the case of public bodies, trying to have a "joint meeting" act for the boards might run afoul of applicable law as well.

Would you elaborate please?

The principle that only members can vote, since such a practice would effectively mean that each board would be granting the right to vote to non-members.

Suppose that the members argued that if they took separate votes successively, they would not be granting a right to vote to non-members? What say you?

Also, what rights of debate might be violated, if any?

Does impartiality or undue influence come in to play?