Is this sufficient for a call of an electronic meeting

[DanielEHayes]

So here is the provision from our policy manual on how to call an electronic meeeting for our board.  I left out the portion that covers notice as it is not relevant to my question.

“e) Each committee member calling for an electronic meeting must do so by emailing the entire committee and specifying the date of the meeting, time of the meeting, and the topic(s) to be addressed. “

 

Is it sufficient in an email chain that one member stated the date, time and topic for members to say, “Please join me to this request.”

or

”I will also call for the meeting at that time.”

These are email responses from members of the board in their entirety.   Are they enough to  be counted for this meeting call?  

I’ll throw in that it’s about a matter of discipline in case that makes a difference.

[Joshua Katz]

Given that the phrase I used, "please join me to this request" is the phrase used by Supreme Court Justices to join an opinion, I say if it's good enough for that, it's good enough to request an online meeting.  

[DanielEHayes]

So must does not mean must?

[Joshua Katz]

I can't imagine a reasonable person reading that language and saying "each needs to send a separate email."  I know that's not what I thought when we wrote it, and it isn't how any other meeting has been called.  It sounds like formality for formality's sake to claim it requires each person to send a separate email.  I think one of our members has pointed out a few times that the rules are to facilitate business, not hinder it.  An interpretation that disallows members from joining a request would look to me like the rules hindering the conduct of business.

[Guest Zev]

If paragraph (e) is all the text about this subject, I get the impression that a single member can call a meeting, but its real interpretation is up to the committee.

[DanielEHayes]

Added for further clarity.  Notice the cancellation notice is much less detailed.

 

d) Electronic meetings may be called by either:
• The committee Chair, or
• 1/3 of the committee members or 2 committee members, whichever is greater. However, the call of an electronic meeting can be canceled if a majority of the committee members email a cancellation request to the entire committee prior to the scheduled time of the meeting.

[Gary Novosielski]

Presuming e-mail is allowed for this purpose in the first place, I'd say the appropriate test is the same as for a ballot vote: if the intent of the voter is clear, it should be counted.

I would argue that if you sent an e-mail requesting a meeting at Monday at noon regarding painting the clubhouse, and I send one concurring with yours, then I have made clear my intent with respect to having the meeting, as well as specifying the time and date, and business to be discussed.

[Richard Brown]

On 1/27/2018 at 12:17 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Given that the phrase I used, "please join me to this request" is the phrase used by Supreme Court Justices to join an opinion, I say if it's good enough for that, it's good enough to request an online meeting.  (Emphasis added)

 

"Please join me to this request" is the phrase used by U.S. Supreme Court Justices?   It isn't even grammatically correct.  I've read lots of Supreme Court opinions and I don't think I've ever seen that phrase.   "Please join me IN this request", perhaps, but not "Please join me to this request". 

Note:  Despite the fact that the phrase/sentence is grammatically incorrect and borderline nonsensical, I do think we understand that the intent is to ask others to "join me IN this request".

[Joshua Katz]

44 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

"Please join me to this request" is the phrase used by U.S. Supreme Court Justices?   It isn't even grammatically correct.  I've read lots of Supreme Court opinions and I don't think I've ever seen that phrase.   "Please join me IN this request", perhaps, but not "Please join me to this request". 

 

It's not used in the opinions; it's used in the memos they send to each other to join opinions, after the drafts have been circulated.

[Richard Brown]

14 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

It's not used in the opinions; it's used in the memos they send to each other to join opinions, after the drafts have been circulated.

And they say, "Please join me TO this opinion", not "Please join me IN this opinion"?   I just find that hard to believe.

But, as I said in my post above, it probably doesn't matter that much because I personally believe the intent is clear, despite the grammatically incorrect statement.  The real issue is what the presiding officer and members of the organization believe in interpreting this rather strangely worded rule and whether they believe the supposedly concurring responses comply with the rule. 

[Joshua Katz]

Just now, Richard Brown said:

And they say, "Please join me TO this opinion", not "Please join me IN this opinion"?   I just find that hard to believe.

 

I'm not about to lecture them on grammar.  shrug

1 minute ago, Richard Brown said:

But, as I said in my post above, it probably doesn't matter that much because I personally believe the intent is clear, despite the grammatically incorrect statement.  The real issue is what the presiding officer and members of the organization believe in interpreting this rather strangely worded rule and whether they believe the supposedly concurring responses comply with the rule. 

I am confident that no one in the organization somehow thinks the responses quoted are anything other than concurring responses.  As I said, demanding that each person type out the date and time is formalism for formalism's sake.

[J. J.]

It seems clear, but if any member had any question about it, he could easily email back and ask. 

Edited January 29, 2018 at 04:24 AM by J. J.

[jstackpo]

But don't forget, the ultimate decision as to whether the notice or call was sufficient can only be made by the members "assembled" (however that is defined) in/at their electronic meeting by their vote in response to an appeal from a chairman's ruling on a point of order that it  was improper.