Who may run a meeting?

[Guest Mark Pattison]

At our last meeting, which is also available via conference call (although our bylaws do not specifically say so), the president could not participate. The vice president, though, ran the meeting even though she was on the conference call and not in person. Is this OK with Robert's Rules?

[Chris Harrison]

Do your bylaws specifically provide for holding meetings via conference call?  If not, then the  whole meeting is null and void (RONR pp. 423-424 and p. 251[d]).  If conference call meetings are permitted then you will need to look to those rules (in your bylaws as well as any Standing or Special Rules your organization may have) for details on what is permissible.

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

4 hours ago, Chris Harrison said:

Do your bylaws specifically provide for holding meetings via conference call?  If not, then the  whole meeting is null and void (RONR pp. 423-424 and p. 251[d]).  If conference call meetings are permitted then you will need to look to those rules (in your bylaws as well as any Standing or Special Rules your organization may have) for details on what is permissible.

I'm not following you. Pages 423-424 are about electronic voting, not electronic meetings, and point "d" on page 251 says that actions taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law create a continuing breach. How can holding an electronic meeting be such a violation when RONR on pages 97-99 describe how to correctly hold them?

I suppose you could argue that since their bylaws (apparently) don't authorize them, the actions are in violation of point "a" on that list: "a main motin has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or constitution) of the organization or assembly." But I would note that even then, the actions are not automatically null and void, it is simply never too late (at a future meeting) for the assembly to declare them null and void.

The obvious first advice is to amend the organization's bylaws to authorize such meetings, since they obviously want to hold them that way. In that case, they should also look at the full section on such meetings and consider also adopting some special rules of order as recommended.

But to directly answer the question asked, what happened was not "Ok with Robert's Rules" if electronic meetings are not authorized in the bylaws. If they are authorized, then there is nothing improper about the vice president presiding electronically at a meeting at which the president is absent unless their bylaws or special rules state that the chair must be present in person.

Edited August 23, 2018 at 12:52 AM by Greg Goodwiller, PRP

[Setemu]

Pages 97-99 states "Except as authorized in the bylaws, the business of an organization or board can validly transacted only at a regular or properly called meeting, [which is] a single official gathering in one room or area..." (emphasis original). It is my understanding that if a meeting is not a "meeting" as defined in RONR, any decision made at said meeting is null and void. If we assume the bylaws in question do not authorize electronic meetings, how then can a vote be binding from such a meeting, if there never was a "meeting" properly understood to begin with? By my lights and by the criteria on pp. 250-251, the violation is at  point "d", specifically fundamental parliamentary principles as articulated at 263 ll. 18-22: it was not a regular or properly called meeting of the assembly (or board)--it is a gathering of people who happen to also be members of the assembly (or board). As such, the right to a vote binding to the assembly (or board) is not extended to anyone at that gathering. People can raise their hands or say "aye" or say such by ballot, but it's not a "vote" with any effect on the assembly (or board).

Edited September 4, 2018 at 09:16 PM by Setemu
clarification, I hope.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think you've nailed it.