Guest Craig Posted September 2, 2014 at 06:20 PM Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 at 06:20 PM Our board recently held a closed session meeting to cover a confidential emloyee issue. Three members of the board were unable to attend this meeting. The President has called for an additional follow up meeting to answer additional questions that have been asked by board members since this meeting. The question is- Do the remaining three board members need to be brought into this meeting and brought up to date before this can proceed, or since they were not involved in the original process have they excluded themselves from the additional meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted September 2, 2014 at 06:29 PM Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 at 06:29 PM Anyone who had a right to be at the first meeting has a right to be at the subsequent meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 2, 2014 at 07:02 PM Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 at 07:02 PM Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted September 3, 2014 at 06:38 AM Report Share Posted September 3, 2014 at 06:38 AM Thank you! Umm, I don't think that's all of it. Mr Fish, do you, really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted September 3, 2014 at 12:45 PM Report Share Posted September 3, 2014 at 12:45 PM I think Mr. Fish summed it up very succinctly and correctly, at least from a parliamentary standpoint, based on the information we were provided. Are we missing something? Edited to add: I don't think they have to be brought into the meeting in the sense of having to be present, but they certainly have a right to be notified of it and to attend and participate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted September 4, 2014 at 02:50 AM Report Share Posted September 4, 2014 at 02:50 AM Umm, I don't think that's all of it. Mr Fish, do you, really? I think Mr. Fish summed it up very succinctly ... Are we missing something? ... Let me first say that when I make an annoyingly cryptic remark, especially at two in the morning, I need to put a post-it note (Reg. U. S. Pat. Off., Reg. Penna. Dept. Agr., maybe Reg. Parl. for all I know) on the corner of the computer monitor or the bathroom mirror or my left nostril or somewhere I'm probably going to notice during the day, telling me what I was thinking, because right now your guess is literally as good as mine, and probably better. (Maybe because you're a college graduate. Or maybe notwithstanding which.) Richard, I'm guessing that your edited addition is principally what I had in mind. But also Timothy Fish did not answer OP Guest Craig's, or his doppelganger, Guest Guest's, first question completely: ... The question is- Do the remaining three board members need to be brought into this meeting and brought up to date before this can proceed [emphasis mine -- GcT] ... ? The answer to which is, that anyone absent from the first meeting does not have the right to be brought up to speed (or up to date, I'm not sure which is which), and by the same token (or the other side of the coin, I'm not sure which is which), no one is obliged to bring them up to date; although of course there is no prohibition on it, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted September 4, 2014 at 04:08 AM Report Share Posted September 4, 2014 at 04:08 AM Anyone who had a right to be at the first meeting has a right to be at the subsequent meeting. Umm, I don't think that's all of it. Mr Fish, do you, really? You were probably bothered by the slight lack of precision in this statement. It would be more accurate (or precise; I haven't forgotten which is which, but I choose to mix and match) to say that if this second meeting is an official meeting of the board, then any member of the board has as much right to be notified of and attend the meeting as any other member of the board, regardless of which people took part in the first meeting.In other words, it doesn't really matter who had a right to be at the first meeting; what matters is who has a right to be at the second meeting. These will usually be the same, but if the membership of the board changes from one meeting to the next, they might be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted September 4, 2014 at 12:14 PM Report Share Posted September 4, 2014 at 12:14 PM In other words, it doesn't really matter who had a right to be at the first meeting; what matters is who has a right to be at the second meeting. These will usually be the same, but if the membership of the board changes from one meeting to the next, they might be different. True, but it really doesn't matter here, since it is obvious that the three board members didn't resign between meetings. But since it was brought up, would it not be important to note the difference between a change in board membership due to resignations and one due to periodic elections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted September 4, 2014 at 05:06 PM Report Share Posted September 4, 2014 at 05:06 PM would it not be important to note the difference between a change in board membership due to resignations and one due to periodic elections?Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.