Joint Meetings

[J. J.]

Yes, not binding.

[Josh Martin]

Would you elaborate please?

Discussion of applicable law is beyond the scope of this forum, so I don't think it would be appropriate to elaborate much on this point. I'd consult an attorney if this is a serious concern.

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?

I... suppose that's true, although the idea makes my head hurt. You're still letting non-members speak in debate, make motions, etc. And there's the whole mess of having one person preside over what should really be two meetings. Plus those potential legal concerns.

Before we go further down this rabbit hole, let's just say that I would highly recommend that if the boards want to do more than have a joint meeting that makes recommendations (like a committee), the boards should develop appropriate special rules of order to determine how such a joint meeting works (since RONR does not provide such rules) and should consult a lawyer about any potential legal concerns.

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

None that I can think of, based on the facts provided.

Does impartiality or undue influence come in to play?

I don't believe so.

[Guest Edgar]

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?

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

(By the way, "What say you?" is a hideous construction.)

q8RJMQ

[Josh Martin]

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

(By the way, "What say you?" is a hideous construction.)

q8RJMQ

Based on Post #12, I think that is the current plan and the desire of the original poster, but he's concerned that others may have different plans.

[Guest Edgar]

Based on Post #12, I think that is the current plan and the desire of the original poster . . .

Let's hope so

. . . but he's concerned that others may have different plans.

Well, if this gathering is not constrained by the rules that apply to meetings then I'm not sure it matters what plans others may have since the parliamentary rug will have been pulled out from beneath them.

dATVM5

[Josh Martin]

Well, if this gathering is not constrained by the rules that apply to meetings then I'm not sure it matters what plans others may have since the parliamentary rug will have been pulled out from beneath them.

Maybe so, but at a meeting of the board the members might attempt to schedule an actual "joint meeting."

[Shmuel Gerber]

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

Joint Meetings, on 18 February 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

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.

I don't think that RONR actually addresses joint meetings of two entities at all. With regard to mergers and consolidations, it discusses (1) meetings of a joint committee comprising selected members of two organizations; (2) simultaneous but separate meetings of the consolidating groups; and (3) a joint meeting of the members of the consolidating groups for the purpose of organizing the new society that is to emerge.

[Josh Martin]

I don't think that RONR actually addresses joint meetings of two entities at all. With regard to mergers and consolidations, it discusses (1) meetings of a joint committee comprising selected members of two organizations; (2) simultaneous but separate meetings of the consolidating groups; and (3) a joint meeting of the members of the consolidating groups for the purpose of organizing the new society that is to emerge.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Guest Watching and Learning]

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

(By the way, "What say you?" is a hideous construction.)

q8RJMQ

1) Perhaps not as they are public boards.

2) "Hideous", eh? If yuz want hideuss, alz ya needz ta do is look to da lads and lassies makinup our new English...they seem to think ours is old and archaic. Someonz gotsta stick up for the old words and expressions.

I don't think that RONR actually addresses joint meetings of two entities at all. With regard to mergers and consolidations, it discusses (1) meetings of a joint committee comprising selected members of two organizations; (2) simultaneous but separate meetings of the consolidating groups; and (3) a joint meeting of the members of the consolidating groups for the purpose of organizing the new society that is to emerge.

In this instance, as the City Board and the School Board are unlikely to consolidate...wait, let's go one step further: suppose they do want to consolidate. They really can't, can they? I mean, RONR doesn't give them the power or authority to create a new merged board, and the members of the boards certainly don't have that power--only the government(s) could do that, so-o-o-o, we come back to the rules of this game--er, Robert's Rules--er, RONR (11th ed.):

Members are the only ones with the right to speak;

Members are the only ones with the right to make a motion;

Members are the only ones with the right to debate;

Members are the only ones with the right to vote.

Comments, Mr. Gerber?

[Guest Watching and Learning]

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

(By the way, "What say you?" is a hideous construction.)

q8RJMQ

1) Perhaps not as they are public boards.

2) "Hideous", eh? If yuz want hideuss, alz ya needz ta do is look to da lads and lassies makinup our new English...they seem to think ours is old and archaic. Someonz gotsta stick up for the old words and expressions.

I don't think that RONR actually addresses joint meetings of two entities at all. With regard to mergers and consolidations, it discusses (1) meetings of a joint committee comprising selected members of two organizations; (2) simultaneous but separate meetings of the consolidating groups; and (3) a joint meeting of the members of the consolidating groups for the purpose of organizing the new society that is to emerge.

In this instance, as the City Board and the School Board are unlikely to consolidate...wait, let's go one step further: suppose they do want to consolidate. They really can't, can they? I mean, RONR doesn't give them the power or authority to create a new merged board, and the members of the boards certainly don't have that power--only the government(s) could do that, so-o-o-o, we come back to the rules of this game--er, Robert's Rules--er, RONR (11th ed.):

Members are the only ones with the right to speak;

Members are the only ones with the right to make a motion;

Members are the only ones with the right to debate;

Members are the only ones with the right to vote.

Comments, Mr. Gerber?

[Gary Novosielski]

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?

Then there would be two separate and distinct (albeit identically worded) questions before two different bodies at the same time. Only one question can be considered at a time.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Members are the only ones with the right to speak;

Members are the only ones with the right to make a motion;

Members are the only ones with the right to debate;

Members are the only ones with the right to vote.

Comments, Mr. Gerber?

Members of what? As far as RONR is concerned, the rights you have cited are the rights of the members of a deliberative assembly at a meeting of that assembly. There are no rules in RONR to govern members of two assemblies at a "joint meeting" of the two.

[Watson]

JOINT MEETING

RTW

Members

Our Council [11 Members] has appointed a Board of [5] Commissioners. Now we would like all 16 individuals to meet jointly in a special meeting with equal status and parliamentary rights. Does RONR propose a proper format for such a meeting? Should the presiding officer be a third party, or chosen from within the group?

#2

Professional Registered Parliamentarian

Members

Does RONR propose a proper format for such a meeting?

No. The term "joint meeting" is not used in RONR (except in the case of a merger of two societies, which does not apply here).

I can think of two ways to establish a joint meeting. One of the assemblies (probably the council, in this case) could create a special committee consisting of all the members of both assemblies, or you could hold a mass meeting which invites all the members of both assemblies (the joint meeting used to merge societies is the latter type).

RTW Should the presiding officer be a third party, or chosen from within the group?

That's up to the assembly. If you go the special committee route, you can have the assembly which appoints the committee select the chairman or leave it to the committee to elect its own chairman. A mass meeting elects its own chairman.

#3

Edgar

RTW Now we would like all 16 individuals to meet jointly in a special meeting with equal status and parliamentary rights.

Aside from the right to attend and speak (a courtesy that can be afforded to non-members), what's the point? This combination of bodies wouldn't constitute a body in its own right so any votes that were taken and decisions made would be, I think, immaterial.

To put it another way, what do you hope to accomplish at this joint gathering that couldn't be accomplished at a meeting of the council to which the commissioners were invited to attend and speak?

#4

Members

Parliamentary rights to do what? And in the name of which body?

I don't understand how an appointed board, presumably a subordinate body to the council, can have equal status in a meeting. If both bodies are meeting, and a motion passes, which body passed it?

#5

Members

Gary Novosielski Parliamentary rights to do what? And in the name of which body?

I don't understand how an appointed board, presumably a subordinate body to the council, can have equal status in a meeting. If both bodies are meeting, and a motion passes, which body passed it?

By taking Mr. Martin's answer to a logical next step, the board and committee could be appointed to a special committee, proceeding to conduct a committee hearing regarding some significant pending business.

[J. J.]

Two separate assemblies could meet in the same room, each suspend its rules to members of the other assembly to speak in debate and make motions, but they could not jointly vote, though each could adopt an identically worded motion. Any secondary motions would also have to be adopted separately and would only be applicable to the single body that adopted it. Each would have a separate quorum, each would have to comply with its own notice requirements.

The fact that I have had to use italics eight times indicates what a bad idea it is.