Can the President be elected secretary pro tem for a meeting and serve concurrently?

[Guest Peter Deg]

According to 3.6 the minimum essential officers for the conduct of business are a presiding officer and a secretary.  In a meeting of a small board (9 members) the secretary was absent.  The president convened the meeting and proceeded to the election of a secretary pro tem.  The board agreed to elect the president as the secretary pro tem and the president agreed. Basically nobody else wanted to take the minutes.  But the question is whether this was a valid meeting. According to RONR does a meeting require a separate secretary and presiding officer so that there are two officers? 

[Josh Martin]

On 9/1/2023 at 12:09 PM, Guest Peter Deg said:

According to 3.6 the minimum essential officers for the conduct of business are a presiding officer and a secretary.  In a meeting of a small board (9 members) the secretary was absent.  The president convened the meeting and proceeded to the election of a secretary pro tem.  The board agreed to elect the president as the secretary pro tem and the president agreed. Basically nobody else wanted to take the minutes.  But the question is whether this was a valid meeting. According to RONR does a meeting require a separate secretary and presiding officer so that there are two officers? 

No rule in RONR prevents a single person from serving as both presiding officer and secretary, and certainly a meeting does not become "invalid" on this basis. While it is correct that RONR provides that there are two essential officers for the conduct of business, nothing in the text provides that these two officers cannot be the same person. Even if such a rule existed, I don't see how this would constitute a continuing breach.

It is not, in my opinion, a very good idea for someone to serve as both presiding officer and secretary, because it is difficult to perform both of these tasks simultaneously. But since everyone but the President was too lazy to take minutes, I suppose the assembly had no other option.

The assembly may wish to consider whether it is putting too much information in its minutes. If the minutes are kept in accordance with the rules of RONR, taking the minutes should not be an especially onerous task.

Edited September 1, 2023 at 05:14 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

Especially since this is a meeting of a small board, I see nothing improper about the presiding officer taking the minutes in the absence of the regular secretary.

In larger assemblies, however, this arrangement is less and less workable the larger the size of the assembly.  The duties of the presiding officer require closer attention, and the presiding officer should be in the chair while the secretary reads the minutes before approval.

[JohnR]

It is telling that Robert says "officers" and not "offices." While, as has been wisely expressed,  there is no explicit rule against the same person presiding and performing as secretary, it is obviously against the spirit of the rules.

[George Mervosh]

On 9/2/2023 at 12:13 AM, JohnR said:

It is telling that Robert says "officers" and not "offices." While, as has been wisely expressed,  there is no explicit rule against the same person presiding and performing as secretary, it is obviously against the spirit of the rules.

It is very nice to see that JohnR has found his way back to this place. 

[Guest Brian]

My state convention of churches is meeting for its annual meeting in November.  Our secretary resigned in the Spring at a board meeting and a pro-tem was appointed by the President for that board meeting only which covered 2 days.  In November, there will be a board meeting followed by a members meeting.  The secretary serves both these meetings.  My question is:  Can the President (who presides over both meetings) appoint a pro-tem to serve both meetings, or will each meeting need to have a pro-tem appointed?    In the members meeting a new secretary will be nominated and voted for.  

[Atul Kapur]

This forum encourages you to start a new thread for your question.

That being said, these are two separate meetings of different bodies, so each would need to choose their pro tem person separately. They may very well choose the same person, but an appointment for one doesn't carry on to the next (as the appointment of a pro tem for the last board meeting doesn't carry on to the upcoming one).

[Tomm]

On 9/1/2023 at 10:13 AM, Josh Martin said:

No rule in RONR prevents a single person from serving as both presiding officer and secretary, and certainly a meeting does not become "invalid" on this basis. While it is correct that RONR provides that there are two essential officers for the conduct of business, nothing in the text provides that these two officers cannot be the same person. Even if such a rule existed, I don't see how this would constitute a continuing breach.

But don't forget to mention 45:2!

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/1/2023 at 1:09 PM, Guest Peter Deg said:

According to 3.6 the minimum essential officers for the conduct of business are a presiding officer and a secretary.  In a meeting of a small board (9 members) the secretary was absent.  The president convened the meeting and proceeded to the election of a secretary pro tem.  The board agreed to elect the president as the secretary pro tem and the president agreed. Basically nobody else wanted to take the minutes.  But the question is whether this was a valid meeting. According to RONR does a meeting require a separate secretary and presiding officer so that there are two officers? 

It does not violate any rule in RONR.  That does not make it a good idea.  Even if it did, it would not make a meeting invalid. 

The president should not have agreed, in my view.  I've been in that same situation and when nobody volunteered, I simply waited.  I've never seen it take more than a minute for someone to crack, and agree to take minutes. 

I have had to point out that RONR requires a recording officer be present, and I did not point out that I could have served in that  role because I had no intention of accepting it.  I have pointed out that I was only looking for someone to take notes, not to paint the building. It's not exactly backbreaking labor.

Edited October 9, 2023 at 08:45 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Joshua Katz]

On 10/9/2023 at 4:44 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I have had to point out that RONR requires a recording officer be present, and I did not point out that I could have served in that  role because I had no intention of accepting it.  I have pointed out that I was only looking for someone to take notes, not to paint the building. It's not exactly backbreaking labor.

Yes, but it's dangerous. Do it a few times, and do a decent job, and suddenly you find yourself elected Secretary.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 10/9/2023 at 3:13 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Yes, but it's dangerous. Do it a few times, and do a decent job, and suddenly you find yourself elected Secretary.

That doesn't mean that you have to accept. 

[Josh Martin]

On 10/9/2023 at 2:55 PM, Tomm said:

But don't forget to mention 45:2!

Yes, 45:2 provides that a person does not receive two votes by virtue of holding two positions, both of which provide membership in an assembly. But a Secretary Pro Tempore position doesn't provide membership in anything anyway.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/9/2023 at 5:13 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Yes, but it's dangerous. Do it a few times, and do a decent job, and suddenly you find yourself elected Secretary.

Shhhhh! 🤫