Who calls the meeting?

[Timothy]

An organization has a standing committee made up of ten members with three being elected during odd numbered years, four being elected during even numbered years, and three ex officio members. Four members have just been elected and the appointing body did not specify a chairman. Who calls the first meeting?

 

(My answer to this was that any two members of the committee should call the meeting, but I'm curious to see if anyone sees a different answer.)

[Transpower]

RONR (11th ed.), p. 499, ll. 21-23:  "If its chairman fails to calla meeting, the committee must meet on the call of any two of its members...."

[Steven Britton]

(My answer to this was that any two members of the committee should call the meeting, but I'm curious to see if anyone sees a different answer.)

According to RONR, it's the duty of the first named person, per pp. 176 and 499; but if the chairman fails to call a meeting, any two member- per p. 499 - may call a meeting.

Due to the method of committee make-up, is it difficult to determine the first person named?

[Timothy]

According to RONR, it's the duty of the first named person, per pp. 176 and 499; but if the chairman fails to call a meeting, any two member- per p. 499 - may call a meeting.

Due to the method of committee make-up, is it difficult to determine the first person named?

 

Yes, that's the problem. I see three "first named" members. There is the first named of those most recently elected. There is the first named of those elected a year ago. And there is the first named of the ex officio members.

[George Mervosh]

"If the committee is named by a power other than the chair (such as the assembly or the executive board), the body that elects the committee members has the power, at the time the appointments are made, to designate any one of them as chairman. If a chairman is not designated when the committee is appointed, the committee has the right to elect its own chairman. In the latter case, the first-named member has the duty of calling the committee together and of acting as temporary chairman until the committee elects a chairman. Since such a committee may confirm its first-named member in the chairmanship, it is important that this person be qualified and dependable."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 176

[Timothy]

I do have a copy of the book, guys. What I'm asking is what does it mean when selection of committee members happens at different times and using different methods?

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, that's the problem. I see three "first named" members. There is the first named of those most recently elected. There is the first named of those elected a year ago. And there is the first named of the ex officio members.

Okay, how about this? Ex officio members are not named, they simply are. If Mr. A was named last year and Mr. P was named this year, is there any doubt who was named first?

[Edgar Guest]

What I'm asking is what does it mean when selection of committee members happens at different times and using different methods?

 

I'd day that the longest-serving member of the committee is the one who was named first (among the current members).

[Timothy]

Okay, how about this? Ex officio members are not named, they simply are. If Mr. A was named last year and Mr. P was named this year, is there any doubt who was named first?

 

I'd day that the longest-serving member of the committee is the one who was named first (among the current members).

 

Interesting. These answers could give us the same person, or a different person, depending on how it is interpreted. Two of the three ex officio members are actually the longest serving, but if we ignore them, there is the question of whether "longest-serving" is the first named last year or it would include members serving back to back terms in calculating time of service.

[Edgar Guest]

Okay, how about this? Ex officio members are not named, they simply are.

 

I think that's an excessively narrow interpretation of "named to" and would mean that ex officio members, who traditionally enjoy the same rights as any other member, would be treated differently.

[Timothy]

I think that's an excessively narrow interpretation of "named to" and would mean that ex officio members, who traditionally enjoy the same rights as any other member, would be treated differently.

 

While I agree, including them complicates the situation because they were "named to" the committee as one group, rather than having any particular order.

[Edgar Guest]

While I agree, including them complicates the situation because they were "named to" the committee as one group, rather than having any particular order.

 

Well, the mere fact that it complicates the situation doesn't alter the facts. And did they really become members of the committee at the exact same time? If, for example, the president, secretary, and treasurer are ex-officio members of the committee, even though they might all be elected to those offices on the same ballot, I think a case could be made for saying the they were elected in that order (i.e. in the order in which they appear in the bylaws). If, on the other hands, people are elected to the same identical position (e.g. seats on the board), you might rank them in order of the greatest number of votes (and hope there wasn't a tie for the first two slots!).

 

Except for an unusual (perhaps hypothetical?) situation, it should be possible to determine, in the words of Bud & Lou, "who's on first".

[Timothy]

Well, the mere fact that it complicates the situation doesn't alter the facts. And did they really become members of the committee at the exact same time? If, for example, the president, secretary, and treasurer are ex-officio members of the committee, even though they might all be elected to those offices on the same ballot, I think a case could be made for saying the they were elected in that order (i.e. in the order in which they appear in the bylaws). If, on the other hands, people are elected to the same identical position (e.g. seats on the board), you might rank them in order of the greatest number of votes (and hope there wasn't a tie for the first two slots!).

 

Except for an unusual (perhaps hypothetical?) situation, it should be possible to determine, in the words of Bud & Lou, "who's on first".

 

While there is something of an pecking order to the ex officio members, the guy at the top of the pecking order came to that position after the other two, who report to him. But those two were added to the committee "at the exact same time." Besides which, in the bylaws, the ex officio members are mentioned last in the composition of the committee.

 

And while you've offered suggestions on how "first named" might be determined, I don't recall seeing anything in RONR that confirms what you've suggested, so we seem to be adding to the possibilities rather than reducing them.

 

As for it being unusual or hypothetical, I don't know how unusual it is, but it isn't hypothetical.

[Edgar Guest]

And while you've offered suggestions on how "first named" might be determined, I don't recall seeing anything in RONR that confirms what you've suggested, so we seem to be adding to the possibilities rather than reducing them.

 

Well, the things that aren't in RONR could fill a book. Sometimes common sense is called for. If you really have an irreducible tie, try tossing a coin. Or arm-wrestling.

[Dan Honemann]

While there is something of an pecking order to the ex officio members, the guy at the top of the pecking order came to that position after the other two, who report to him. But those two were added to the committee "at the exact same time." Besides which, in the bylaws, the ex officio members are mentioned last in the composition of the committee.

 

And while you've offered suggestions on how "first named" might be determined, I don't recall seeing anything in RONR that confirms what you've suggested, so we seem to be adding to the possibilities rather than reducing them.

 

As for it being unusual or hypothetical, I don't know how unusual it is, but it isn't hypothetical.

 

If it isn't hypothetical, why don't you tell us all about the creation of this standing committee, who was chairman at the time its last meeting adjourned, and how it was adjourned? It is rather naive to expect an answer to your question without providing any of this information.

[Timothy]

If it isn't hypothetical, why don't you tell us all about the creation of this standing committee, who was chairman at the time its last meeting adjourned, and how it was adjourned? It is rather naive to expect an answer to your question without providing any of this information.

 

The gentleman who was the chairman the last time the committee adjourned is one of the people whose term ended this year and is no longer on the committee. I don't know how it was adjourned; I'm not on the committee. The standing committee was created more than fifty years ago. It was originally called the "Calendar Committee," but it is now called the "Planning Committee." As I recall, it was originally elected annually, but they decided to set it up on staggered two year terms. A few years ago, the decision was made to add "the staff" to the committee.

[Dan Honemann]

The gentleman who was the chairman the last time the committee adjourned is one of the people whose term ended this year and is no longer on the committee. I don't know how it was adjourned; I'm not on the committee. The standing committee was created more than fifty years ago. It was originally called the "Calendar Committee," but it is now called the "Planning Committee." As I recall, it was originally elected annually, but they decided to set it up on staggered two year terms. A few years ago, the decision was made to add "the staff" to the committee.

 

Well, my guess is that if we knew a great deal more about these details, the answer would be easier to come by. But then again, I suppose a standing committee might be careless enough to adjourn without having the foggiest notion as to when it will meet again, or by whom its next meeting is to be called.

[Timothy]

I suppose a standing committee might be careless enough to adjourn without having the foggiest notion as to when it will meet again, or by whom its next meeting is to be called.

 

Considering that I had four members of that committee asking me what to do about calling a meeting, I think that is a pretty safe bet.

[Dan Honemann]

Considering that I had four members of that committee asking me what to do about calling a meeting, I think that is a pretty safe bet.

 

Well, tell them to call a meeting.

[Timothy]

Well, tell them to call a meeting.

 

I did. I just thought it was interesting because there didn't seem to be one person with a clear responsibility to call a meeting.