Taking attendance at a club meeting

[Guest Sara]

A member questionned me recently why our small club took attendance (and recorded in the minutes).  I consulted RONR and there is no reference.  I couldn't give a valid reason WHY we took attendance since there is nothing in the bylaws or standing rules which governs attendance/absence affecting membership.

Is this just "something we've always done"  and what is the problem with doing away with it..other than noting for the future who actually attended the meetings?

Thank you.

Sara

[jstackpo]

Just stop since there is no rule requiring it.

 

Besides, defining "attendance" can get a bit tricky: 

 

If late (how late?) does that count?

 

Be there, but sleep through whole meeting?

 

Leave early (how early?)...

 

&c.

[Gary c Tesser]

I bet organizations take attendance because all their members attended school in the third grade and we remember fondly how much fun that was and we yearn with sweet reminiscence for those nostalgic halcyon days.

 

Yup.

[Gary c Tesser]

Either that or it's another symptom of creeping socialism.

[David A Foulkes]

Is this just "something we've always done"  and what is the problem with doing away with it..other than noting for the future who actually attended the meetings?

 

It's likely a harmless practice, and with a "small" club, probably not much of a time-waster.  As there is no rule (in RONR or in yours) requiring it, you could just stop doing it, even without the need of adopting a rule that you stop.  Just stop.  No harm, no foul.  And yet, there will likely be someone who questions why it's no longer done, and raise a minor issue over it.  Might be worth a short discussion with the group to see if anyone can provide good reason for keeping the practice, although it's hard to imagine one.

[Gary c Tesser]

 ... although it's hard to imagine one.

 

Perhaps 1991, it was, the New York Science-Fiction Society (affectionately known as The Lunarians, "derived from 'Station Luna,' a call sign used on recorded works by founding member Frank Deitz" * ) was (hotly) debating whether, at its annual New York-area science-fiction convention, the standard dealers' room should be supplemented by allowing some additional dealers to sell merchandise out of their hotel rooms, which would be situated in a specified area of the hotel, to be known as Dealers' Row.  The main proponent was at the time the owner of a bookstore ("Science Fiction, Mysteries, and More," on Chambers Street, IIRC ** ; let's call him Alan), and wanted, at least, to have the opportunity to have a weekend in the 'burbs, with a self-selected group of a thousand or fifteen hundred self-selected consumers of the product he sold, to whom he could sell it.  The leader of the opposition (as it happens, my own bete noir, whose machinations in general and parliamentary legerdemain at our meetings are what prompted me to pick up the then very new RONR, 9th Edition and immerse myslef in it.  It is, then, to this vantz, this mamser,  that we owe my interest in parliamentary procedure; otherwise you'd never have heard of me, and I'd have poured these millions of words these fifteen years or so into science-fiction fan websites) had a few lines of reasoning, more or less invented at need, which he bounced smoothly among, which amounted to, whatever I oppose is a personal affront and offensive to everyone because I don't like it, and I can refute any argument on any subject because I'm compelling and persuasive.

 

(Let's call him Stuart.  Probably like in my previous rant.)

 

So after probably an hour or so of heated wrangling, Alan simply made the motion that the convention, called Lunacon, will have a dealers' row.  (We used to argue interminably, unencumbered by a motion, I suspect because Stuart, aware that the membership generally didn't know we needed one, knew that without a motion pending, to which debate must be germane, he could drag in distracting and disconcerting irrelevancies at will.

 

(One time, when I was presiding, he proposed discussing our establishing a Lunarians-sponsored library.  Of course, as usual, such a discussion would go on and on, allowing Stuart to orate, which was of course the purpose of our having meetings, if not the the real fundamental reason for the existence of the Universe; by this time, I had absorbed a rudimentary knowledge of what a presiding officer is expected to do, so I pointed out that discussion without a motion is improper.  To which, he easily moved that we now discuss establishing a library.  The motion passed.  And we discussed, interminably, having a library.  I sat there as the minutes went by, chewing my eyebrows as Stuart momentously, portentously held forth, wondering what had gone wrong.  I still do.  I can't believe it's simply the folly of going up against a demonstrably superior intellect, who can with trivial effort outsmart me at every turn.  But that's what happened, over and over, and I can't to this day come up with another explanation.)

 

So Stuart pounced.

 

(And, as The Goon Show used to say, here's where the story really begins.)

 

The Lunarians at the time had an attendance requirement.  And Alan, as an entrepreneur and main staff of his store, rarely got to our meetings, Saturday nights or Sunday afternoons, because he needed to be at work at the time.  So Stuart declared that Alan could not make a motion, because he had not attended enough meetings in the previous year, so was no longer a member.

 

(You may ask why so diligent, industrious, committed a member as Stuart didn't bother to bring up someone's questionable membership until Alan made a motion that Stuart didn't like.  Why, indeed.)

 

And of course Alan said of course he had.  So of course we dickered.  (Stuart's bread-and-butter.)

 

(A parliamentarian, or an otherwise sane human being, might say that Stuart really only had the right to raise a point of order, that Alan was not a member so could not make a motion; the chair would rule, Stuart would appeal, dicker dicker dicker, more bread-and-butter, maybe actually Stuart's filet mignon, come to think of it.  But what did we know?  We were accustomed to taking Stuart's word for what the rules were.  And, often, what New York State law said.)

 

After a bootless half-hour or so of squabbling (I won't dignify any argument that Stuart precipitated as debate), Mark spoke up.

 

Now, my friend Mark had assiduously kept attendance records.  He was, for the two or so years that I was the president, the vice-president, and the bylaws defined the vice-president as, among other things, the "membership officer."

 

I myself had no idea what that meant.  (And still don't.  I'll bet it's a provision that Stuart pushed through, so that he would have one more hook to wiggle on whenever he needed one; but no of course I got nothing for that except my conviction.)  There was nothing more on it; I always assumed it meant more-or-less a kind of ombudsman, someone a regular member could go to when he had some issue with the club; maybe as an intermediary between the hoi polloi regular membership and the patrician Board.  (So I never did anything, formally, as the Membership Officer.  When I spoke to members, I would bring their concerns to The Board, but I never thought to mention that I thought of it as a Membership Officer function.  Later I was challenged about what I, as the Vice-President, had done as the Membership Officer, and I was at a loss.)

 

Mark, however, understood "membership officer" differently, so when he became the vice-president, he dutifully collected the sign-in attendance sheets (whose sudden appearance one month at the beginning of the meeting I had meeting I had dismissed as pointless gratuitous paperwork, probably Stuart's idea, one more task to wear down potential opponents with), and tabulated them.  And he rummaged through his stacks, and produced the documents that demonstrated that Alan had, indeed, attended enough meetings in the previous year to qualify him as a member now, so he could make this motion now.

 

That's why it can be useful to keep attendance records.  Yes it's idiotic.

________

*From the Lunacon program book, 2009

** Here, that stands for "if I reminisce correctly".

[Rev Ed]

Either that or it's another symptom of creeping socialism.

 

I have spoken to some people who feel it is important for Board meetings to list who attended a meeting (this is a practice used by many corporations.)  There are two reasons that seem to be a rationale for it:

 

1)  If a member receives a per diem for attending (basically being paid every time you attend), then knowing who attended is important.

 

2)  For some people they want to know that the people they are voting for will actually show up and do their work.

 

#2 seems the main reason to people I have spoken to.

[David A Foulkes]

Perhaps 1991.......

......correctly".

 

And with this, the internet is now 98.72% full.

[Josh Martin]

Just stop since there is no rule requiring it.

 

Just stop.  No harm, no foul. 

 

It seems to me that while there is no rule in RONR which requires the Secretary to take and record attendance, there is also no rule prohibiting it. So I would think the assembly's custom in this regard should be followed unless and until the assembly votes to do otherwise. Perhaps the Secretary can raise this issue in her next report.

 

I agree that I can't imagine any reason, based upon the facts provided, why this information would be of any value, but the assembly is nonetheless free to continue the practice if it wishes.

 

I have spoken to some people who feel it is important for Board meetings to list who attended a meeting (this is a practice used by many corporations.)  There are two reasons that seem to be a rationale for it:

 

1)  If a member receives a per diem for attending (basically being paid every time you attend), then knowing who attended is important.

 

2)  For some people they want to know that the people they are voting for will actually show up and do their work.

 

#2 seems the main reason to people I have spoken to.

 

These are excellent points for a board or other assembly which is responsible to an interested constituency, but so far as I can tell, the OP's question is about meetings of the club. Since the OP has already noted that the club has no attendance requirements, I can't imagine what the reason would be to record attendance.

[David A Foulkes]

It seems to me that while there is no rule in RONR which requires the Secretary to take and record attendance, there is also no rule prohibiting it. So I would think the assembly's custom in this regard should be followed unless and until the assembly votes to do otherwise. Perhaps the Secretary can raise this issue in her next report.

 

I'm not really in disagreement with you here, and in fact I led off with a suggestion (perhaps only hintingly so) that maintaining the practice didn't sound too harmful.  My point was that, since there is no binding rule on the practice, and assuming it is just a custom, that it wouldn't require anything more to stop doing it than to simply stop doing it.  Since the custom is not in opposition to any established rule, I'd say a Point of Order should not even be entertained on it (tho I could be wrong, again).  Not taking attendance at the next meeting or two might inspire a member to ask why not, at which time the chair could simply point out that it is not required, either by RONR or the society's rules.  If it generates adoption of a rule on the practice by the assembly, then all's well.  Or perhaps the custom will be dropped, and they can get down to business 30 seconds sooner.

[Josh Martin]

Since the custom is not in opposition to any established rule, I'd say a Point of Order should not even be entertained on it (tho I could be wrong, again).

 

If I were in the chair and the assembly had no rules on this subject, I would entertain a Point of Order that taking roll call was not in order, but I would rule it not well taken. I would not permit an Appeal, since RONR specifically notes roll call as an optional heading in the standard order of business. I would note that if the members wished to cease the practice, the appropriate course of action would be to make a motion to that effect.

 

Not taking attendance at the next meeting or two might inspire a member to ask why not, at which time the chair could simply point out that it is not required, either by RONR or the society's rules.  If it generates adoption of a rule on the practice by the assembly, then all's well.  Or perhaps the custom will be dropped, and they can get down to business 30 seconds sooner.

 

This is not appropriate. "In some organizations, a particular practice may sometimes come to be followed as a matter of established custom so that it is treated practically as if it were prescribed by a rule. If there is no contrary provision in the parliamentary authority or written rules of the organization, the established custom should be followed unless the assembly, by majority vote, agrees in a particular instance to do otherwise." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 19) As I said, the custom should be followed unless and until the assembly votes to do otherwise. It would not be appropriate for the Secretary and/or the chair to cease the practice on their own initiative.

[David A Foulkes]

Ah, well.... teach me to post when I don't have my book with me!    Well done, sir.

[George Mervosh]

A member questionned me recently why our small club took attendance (and recorded in the minutes).  I consulted RONR and there is no reference.  I couldn't give a valid reason WHY we took attendance since there is nothing in the bylaws or standing rules which governs attendance/absence affecting membership.

Is this just "something we've always done"  and what is the problem with doing away with it..other than noting for the future who actually attended the meetings?

Thank you.

Sara

 

Assuming that you do stop doing all of this, remember that -

 

"the fact that the regular chairman and secretary were present or, in their absence, the names of the persons who substituted for them;"  IS recorded in the minutes.  RONR (11th ed.), p. 468