Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Flexible regular meetings


Alex Meed

Recommended Posts

The discussion in this thread led to a separate question that I wanted to ask separately: Our executive board currently has weekly meetings to consider most of its business. We occasionally call meetings outside the weekly routine to handle incidental matters. Most of our weekly meetings are at the same time on the same weekday, but we sometimes reschedule that meeting based on board members' scheduling constraints. Our current bylaws are silent on board meetings other than that they "shall be held at least every two weeks and are open to all members of the organization."

We're doing a bylaws revision, and I think it might be prudent to bring our board meetings into the regular-meeting–special-meeting framework. But RONR's treatment of regular meetings (p. 89) says they are only usually scheduled on a weekday prescribed in the bylaws, or else by resolution. I think our board would revolt if the bylaws required meetings to be on the same weekday, and probably revolt even more strongly if they had to adopt a resolution at each regular meeting to schedule the next such meeting. Also, since we're a student organization, I want future boards to have the flexibility to continue or not continue regular meetings during the summer and winter.

Is it common for organizations to give a particular officer (say, the President) or a particular number of board members a high degree of control over when regular board meetings are called? How can this be done without creating an opportunity for subversion?

Also, the report of the bylaws committee, which I wrote (as bylaws chairman) with a confused understanding of the RONR provisions relating to boards, simply allows the President or a majority of officers to call a board meeting, and makes no distinction between regular and special meetings and no provision that the board meet at any regular interval. Is this a usual, or advisable, way of arranging board meetings, or should it be changed to provide for regular and special meetings?

Edited by Alex M.
Clarify some matters in the first bold paragraph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Alex M. said:

I think our board would revolt if the bylaws required meetings to be on the same weekday, and probably revolt even more strongly if they had to adopt a resolution at each regular meeting to schedule the next such meeting.

I would note that if the rules require meetings to be scheduled by resolution, this does not necessarily mean that such a resolution must be scheduled at each meeting. A common arrangement is for the board to adopt a resolution establishing the schedule of meetings for an entire year, and then only adopt further resolutions if it is necessary to amend the schedule.

27 minutes ago, Alex M. said:

Is it common for organizations to give a particular officer (say, the President) or a particular number of officers a high degree of control over when regular meetings are called?

It is not terribly unusual.

27 minutes ago, Alex M. said:

How can this be done without creating an opportunity for subversion?

The rule could provide that meetings may also be scheduled by the board itself, or by a certain number of members.

29 minutes ago, Alex M. said:

Also, the report of the bylaws committee, which I wrote (as bylaws chairman) with a confused understanding of the RONR provisions relating to boards, simply allows the President or a majority of officers to call a board meeting, and makes no distinction between regular and special meetings and no provision that the board meet at any regular interval. Is this a usual, or advisable, way of arranging board meetings, or should it be changed to provide for regular and special meetings?

It could be changed to provide for regular meetings and special meetings. Alternately, the rule could specifically provide for regular meetings, but not permit special meetings. It would not be advisable to leave the rule ambiguous about the type of meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So would it be unusual to simply provide that the board has regular meetings at the call of the president or of X number of board members? Or perhaps that regular meetings occur on X weekday and may be rescheduled by written consent of Y number of board members, and the president or Z number of board members may call special meetings?

The approach you provide for scheduling meetings by resolution sounds much more sane, but I still feel like the board would revolt—albeit less intensely—if they lose the ability to reschedule regular meetings outside of having to take a vote at a prior meeting. Getting this organization to follow Robert's—or some semblance thereof—is enough of a battle already!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alex M. said:

So would it be unusual to simply provide that the board has regular meetings at the call of the president or of X number of board members? Or perhaps that regular meetings occur on X weekday and may be rescheduled by written consent of Y number of board members, and the president or Z number of board members may call special meetings?

Your organization may ultimately adopt whatever rules on this matter it wishes. The proposals you suggest seem reasonable.

I would spend less time worrying about what is “usual.” The important thing is that the rule is clear and that it works for your organization. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Josh Martin said:

Your organization may ultimately adopt whatever rules on this matter it wishes. The proposals you suggest seem reasonable.

I would spend less time worrying about what is “usual.” The important thing is that the rule is clear and that it works for your organization. 

Fair point. My preoccupation with the "usual" comes from a desire to avoid things that other societies have tried and failed—but ultimately, our organization is unusual in plenty of ways already, so I should probably just accept that.

Thanks for your guidance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2019 at 5:48 PM, Alex M. said:

The discussion in this thread led to a separate question that I wanted to ask separately: Our executive board currently has weekly meetings to consider most of its business. We occasionally call meetings outside the weekly routine to handle incidental matters. Most of our weekly meetings are at the same time on the same weekday, but we sometimes reschedule that meeting based on board members' scheduling constraints. Our current bylaws are silent on board meetings other than that they "shall be held at least every two weeks and are open to all members of the organization."

We're doing a bylaws revision, and I think it might be prudent to bring our board meetings into the regular-meeting–special-meeting framework. But RONR's treatment of regular meetings (p. 89) says they are only usually scheduled on a weekday prescribed in the bylaws, or else by resolution. I think our board would revolt if the bylaws required meetings to be on the same weekday, and probably revolt even more strongly if they had to adopt a resolution at each regular meeting to schedule the next such meeting. Also, since we're a student organization, I want future boards to have the flexibility to continue or not continue regular meetings during the summer and winter.

Is it common for organizations to give a particular officer (say, the President) or a particular number of board members a high degree of control over when regular board meetings are called? How can this be done without creating an opportunity for subversion?

Also, the report of the bylaws committee, which I wrote (as bylaws chairman) with a confused understanding of the RONR provisions relating to boards, simply allows the President or a majority of officers to call a board meeting, and makes no distinction between regular and special meetings and no provision that the board meet at any regular interval. Is this a usual, or advisable, way of arranging board meetings, or should it be changed to provide for regular and special meetings?

I am trying to get my head around the concept that a group of rational beings would rebel at the idea that they democratically choose the time and date of the next meeting, yet not rebel at the idea that one individual should have he power to dictate when and where they must show up, no matter how inconvenient.

Since the bylaws are typically voted on by the general membership, it is usually the case that the board meets whenever the full membership says they do.

It has been amply demonstrated in practice that having a planned and predictable day when meetings are held leads to more reliable attendance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I am trying to get my head around the concept that a group of rational beings would rebel at the idea that they democratically choose the time and date of the next meeting, yet not rebel at the idea that one individual should have he power to dictate when and where they must show up, no matter how inconvenient.

 

I once went through such an irritating selection process for when and where a meeting would be held that I (loudly) asked the chair to just do it because I didn't really care what city I flew to for the purpose of sitting in an airport hotel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I am trying to get my head around the concept that a group of rational beings would rebel at the idea that they democratically choose the time and date of the next meeting, yet not rebel at the idea that one individual should have he power to dictate when and where they must show up, no matter how inconvenient.

You would have trouble getting your head around the mindset of the members of my organization. Though perhaps their attitude is because we haven't had a truly nasty President who has tried to exploit things like that. Views might change if, God forbid, that happens.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I once went through such an irritating selection process for when and where a meeting would be held that I (loudly) asked the chair to just do it because I didn't really care what city I flew to for the purpose of sitting in an airport hotel.

Yeah, point taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...