vote by email

[Guest Ruth Hicks]

If one person on a committee being asked to vote on a motion votes in the negative, does it then require a face to face meeting for discussion and a vote?

[Rob Elsman]

Nothing in RONR requires a face-to-face meeting of a committe on account of one member's vote.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Guest Ruth Hicks said:

If one person on a committee being asked to vote on a motion votes in the negative, does it then require a face to face meeting for discussion and a vote?

Nothing in RONR permits a committee to vote by email in the first place.

[Richard Brown]

17 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Nothing in RONR permits a committee to vote by email in the first place.

That is quite true, but since the question is about a committee report, perhaps we should point out that page 503 does permit a committee to render a report to which every member has agreed even if the committee had no actual meetings.  It seems that this agreement can be reached via email.  Here is the text of the relevant from page 503:  "In the case of a committee, however, if it is impractical to bring its members together for a meeting, the report of the committee can contain what has been agreed to by every one of its members."

RONR does not tell us just how the committee or its chairman should go about getting this agreement from all of the members in the absence of a meeting.

[Josh Martin]

11 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

That is quite true, but since the question is about a committee report, perhaps we should point out that page 503 does permit a committee to render a report to which every member has agreed even if the committee had no actual meetings.  It seems that this agreement can be reached via email.  Here is the text of the relevant from page 503:  "In the case of a committee, however, if it is impractical to bring its members together for a meeting, the report of the committee can contain what has been agreed to by every one of its members."

RONR does not tell us just how the committee or its chairman should go about getting this agreement from all of the members in the absence of a meeting.

Yes, so in that instance, the refusal of one member would indeed require the committee to meet (in person, unless the organization’s rules permit another method).

[Joshua Katz]

50 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Yes, so in that instance, the refusal of one member would indeed require the committee to meet (in person, unless the organization’s rules permit another method).

Why? They could just not include that item in the report.

[jstackpo]

37 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Why? They could just not include that item in the report.

But only if the dissident committee member agreed to sending the report with the specific information (whatever it might be) removed from the report.

And who knows, perhaps one of the other committee members would object to that and there would still be no unanimity, so no report.

[Joshua Katz]

On 10/24/2019 at 6:30 PM, Richard Brown said:

Here is the text of the relevant from page 503:  "In the case of a committee, however, if it is impractical to bring its members together for a meeting, the report of the committee can contain what has been agreed to by every one of its members."

 

On 10/24/2019 at 6:30 PM, Richard Brown said:

That is quite true, but since the question is about a committee report, perhaps we should point out that page 503 does permit a committee to render a report to which every member has agreed even if the committee had no actual meetings. 

 

11 hours ago, jstackpo said:

But only if the dissident committee member agreed to sending the report with the specific information (whatever it might be) removed from the report.

 

It seems I read this passage differently from Mr. Brown and Dr. Stackpole. I do not see any requirement that all members agree to the entire report, including any omissions. Rather, it seems to me that each inclusion must be unanimously agreed to, but not that they must agree on all things that will not be included. In fact, I don't see how that's possible, since the universe of things that will not be in the report is quite large.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think it means that the contents of the report, if and as amended, must be approved by every member.  There is no comparable case in RONR where pieces of a motion may be added by those in favor, while the will of those opposed is ignored.

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I think it means that the contents of the report, if and as amended, must be approved by every member.  There is no comparable case in RONR where pieces of a motion may be added by those in favor, while the will of those opposed is ignored.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. The first sentence looks like something I agree with, but I don't see what the second means.

[Richard Brown]

6 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I think it means that the contents of the report, if and as amended, must be approved by every member.  There is no comparable case in RONR where pieces of a motion may be added by those in favor, while the will of those opposed is ignored.

 

4 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I'm sorry, I don't follow. The first sentence looks like something I agree with, but I don't see what the second means.

I, too, agree with the first sentence but do not understand the second sentence.