Committee Meeting Notice

[Guest Jo]

Nominating committee was elected; per bylaws, president appoints chair pro tem whose responsibility is to call the first meeting at which the committee is to elect its own chair. Notice went out of the first meeting stating that a meeting would be held to elect the chair and to schedule the first meeting to discuss nominees. At the meeting, those present (there was enough for a quorum) decided to simply review the nominees and voted on the slate.

The question is: is this a violation of the rights of absentees as there were members of the committee who did not attend as they were under the impression it was simply to select the chair (and they didn't care who was elected chair) and to set the date for the first meeting to discuss nominees?

[Rob Elsman]

Based solely on the facts given, it looks to me like the action taken at the committee's first meeting was valid, notwithstanding what the call of the meeting said, since, from what I can tell from the scant facts, the bylaws do not limit what can be done at the committee's first meeting.

Of course, I'm shooting from the hip, so to speak, because I do not have before me the "four corners" of the bylaws. If there is more to this than what I know now, my answer could be quite different.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Nominating committee was elected.

Per bylaws, president appoints chair pro tem whose responsibility is to call the first meeting at which the committee is to elect its own chair.

Notice went out of the first meeting stating that a meeting would be held to elect the chair and to schedule the first meeting to discuss nominees.

At the meeting, those present (there was enough for a quorum) decided to simply review the nominees and voted on the slate.

Q. Is this a violation of the rights of absentees, as there were members of the committee who did not attend as they were under the impression it was simply to select the chair (and they didn't care who was elected chair) and to set the date for the first meeting to discuss nominees?

Probably, "No."

The charge (i.e., instruction) of a committee takes priority over somebody's idea of notice or call-to-meeting for a committee.

Unlike the rules for a special meeting, where notice creates a LIMIT of what business can be entertained, such is not the case for a committee WITH A CHARGE from the parent assembly.

The notice which was sent cannot increase or decrease, or alter, the charge of the committee, as issued by the superior body who created and populated the committee. The charge does not change, from meeting to meeting.

The committee is still free to meet again, and alter whatever decision the committee has made.

(This, again, is another difference versus a special meeting of a deliberative assembly.)

It is all one "session" in the technical sense. - All meetings of an ad hoc committee (like a Nom. Comm.) comprise one single session.

So the rules of the motions Reconsideration and Amend Something Previously Adopted are likewise more available than in the average non-committee (i.e., different session) situation. (There are time restrictions for Reconsideration, normally.)

[Rob Elsman]

Probably, "No."

The charge (i.e., instruction) of a committee takes priority over somebody's idea of notice or call-to-meeting for a committee.

Unlike the rules for a special meeting, where notice creates a LIMIT of what business can be entertained, such is not the case for a committee WITH A CHARGE from the parent assembly.

The notice which was sent cannot increase or decrease, or alter, the charge of the committee, as issued by the superior body who created and populated the committee. The charge does not change, from meeting to meeting.

The committee is still free to meet again, and alter whatever decision the committee has made.

(This, again, is another difference versus a special meeting of a deliberative assembly.)

It is all one "session" in the technical sense. - All meetings of an ad hoc committee (like a Nom. Comm.) comprise one single session.

So the rules of the motions Reconsideration and Amend Something Previously Adopted are likewise more available than in the average non-committee (i.e., different session) situation. (There are time restrictions for Reconsideration, normally.)

Well, we don't know whether the committee can meet again. My understanding is that the committee agreed to its report and likely agreed to "rise and report", which would indicate that there is no further meeting to be had. The committee has, I suspect, agreed, in effect, to adjourn sine die.

[Guest Jo]

Well, we don't know whether the committee can meet again. My understanding is that the committee agreed to its report and likely agreed to "rise and report", which would indicate that there is no further meeting to be had. The committee has, I suspect, agreed, in effect, to adjourn sine die.

No one knows since the absentees were, well, absent. FYI, I was not one of the committee members, either present or otherwise; this question was brought to me by one of the absentees. It seems to me, however, that this is an end-run around the rules protecting absentees. HAD the absentees known the regular business was going to be conducted versus what the chair put out in the call of the meeting, they could have chosen to be present. Does this protection only apply to bylaws? It would seem that had notice simply gone out that "there will be a meeting" that anything would be fair game ... but when the notice goes out informing the committee that a meeting will be held solely for A, B, and C, it would seem highly probable that members would rely on that information. In this instance, when the chair saw who was not present, they enlisted at least one alternate (I assume to make quorum otherwise there would be no need for an alternate) and then proceeded with the regular business to specifcally exclude these people from the process. Maybe that was her right, and maybe the absentees should have known to be there regardless of what the chair had said, but it has been my understanding that the whole point of Robert's was to ensure fairness (to absentees, the minority, etc.) and this hardly seems to qualify.

[hmtcastle]

It would seem that had notice simply gone out that "there will be a meeting" that anything would be fair game ... but when the notice goes out informing the committee that a meeting will be held solely for A, B, and C, it would seem highly probable that members would rely on that information.

There was a recent discussion on this topic. It involved notice of a meeting which was to be "for discussion only", implying that no vote would be taken. If I recall correctly, most here thought that such a limitation was invalid though many also felt that, despite that fact, a member might reasonably rely on the notice and stay home.

Clearly, special meetings are limited to the business described in the notice but, if all committee meetings are "special" (or, at least, non-regular), I think the question (or the answer) is less clear.

Perhaps someone can provide a link to the earlier discussion.

[Trina]

There was a recent discussion on this topic. It involved notice of a meeting which was to be "for discussion only", implying that no vote would be taken. If I recall correctly, most here thought that such a limitation was invalid though many also felt that, despite that fact, a member might reasonably rely on the notice and stay home.

Clearly, special meetings are limited to the business described in the notice but, if all committee meetings are "special" (or, at least, non-regular), I think the question (or the answer) is less clear.

Perhaps someone can provide a link to the earlier discussion.

I think this is the thread you mean:

And here is the earlier discussion that triggered that thread:

[Josh Martin]

No one knows since the absentees were, well, absent. FYI, I was not one of the committee members, either present or otherwise; this question was brought to me by one of the absentees. It seems to me, however, that this is an end-run around the rules protecting absentees. HAD the absentees known the regular business was going to be conducted versus what the chair put out in the call of the meeting, they could have chosen to be present. Does this protection only apply to bylaws?

The rules which require that members be informed of what business will transpire apply only to special meetings and motions which require previous notice. Since all committee meetings are regular meetings and nothing in RONR requires previous notice for deciding upon nominees, no rules protecting absentees (and indeed, no rules at all) were violated, unless there is something in your assembly's rules which would suggest otherwise.

Maybe that was her right, and maybe the absentees should have known to be there regardless of what the chair had said, but it has been my understanding that the whole point of Robert's was to ensure fairness (to absentees, the minority, etc.) and this hardly seems to qualify.

Certainly what happened does not appear fair, but no rule in RONR was violated. As Mr. Elsman notes, it appears that the committee's task is completed, and it therefore would have adjourned sine die. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 230, lines 9-12) If this is not the case (perhaps the committee has not yet decided upon nominees for all positions), then at the next committee meeting, the previous motions to nominate could be reconsidered, rescinded, or amended. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 295, lines 31-35; pg. 318, line 32 - pg. 319, line 16) If the committee has adjourned sine die, then the only recourse will be for the other members of the committee to make their nominations from the floor. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 421, lines 6-10)

If the assembly does believe that the notice was intentionally misleading, it may be appropriate to take disciplinary action against the members responsible - or at the very least, think twice before putting them on committees in the future.

Clearly, special meetings are limited to the business described in the notice but, if all committee meetings are "special" (or, at least, non-regular), I think the question (or the answer) is less clear.

I believe that all committee meetings are considered to be regular meetings (unless the organization's rules state otherwise). As RONR notes, special meetings may only be called if provided for in the Bylaws. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 89, lines 25-27) Therefore, the rules in RONR which provide for the calling of committee meetings must be referring to regular meetings. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 482, lines 17-23)

[hmtcastle]

I believe that all committee meetings are considered to be regular meetings (unless the organization's rules state otherwise).

Works for me. Thanks.

[Guest Jo]

Certainly what happened does not appear fair, but no rule in RONR was violated. As Mr. Elsman notes, it appears that the committee's task is completed, and it therefore would have adjourned sine die. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 230, lines 9-12) If this is not the case (perhaps the committee has not yet decided upon nominees for all positions), then at the next committee meeting, the previous motions to nominate could be reconsidered, rescinded, or amended. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 295, lines 31-35; pg. 318, line 32 - pg. 319, line 16) If the committee has adjourned sine die, then the only recourse will be for the other members of the committee to make their nominations from the floor. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 421, lines 6-10)

I know what you are saying, and I don't disagree with the interpretation, but there are far more people out that that do not understand Robert's and rely, to their detriment, on the representations of others.

New information that came out today: Bylaws require that consent of all nominees be obtained; apparently one of the people selected by the nominating committee declined the nomination. That would mean (I think) that the committee must reconvene to fill that position (regarless of how they adjourned the last one because their job is not done untilt he slate is presented at the election meeting), but what happened was the chair individually spoke with the other members and told them that so and so declined, did they have a problem replacing him/her with such and such. They replaced the name and have published the slate (election is not for several months, but again, bylaws require that the slate be published x days in advance of the election). This would seem to be in violation of the requirements that all voting members be together for discussion. Is there any recourse here? As always, thank you all!

[Rob Elsman]

I know what you are saying, and I don't disagree with the interpretation, but there are far more people out that that do not understand Robert's and rely, to their detriment, on the representations of others.

New information that came out today: Bylaws require that consent of all nominees be obtained; apparently one of the people selected by the nominating committee declined the nomination. That would mean (I think) that the committee must reconvene to fill that position (regarless of how they adjourned the last one because their job is not done untilt he slate is presented at the election meeting), but what happened was the chair individually spoke with the other members and told them that so and so declined, did they have a problem replacing him/her with such and such. They replaced the name and have published the slate (election is not for several months, but again, bylaws require that the slate be published x days in advance of the election). This would seem to be in violation of the requirements that all voting members be together for discussion. Is there any recourse here? As always, thank you all!

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The time to make sure that everyone who has a role in the nomination/election cycle knows the rules is before the cycle begins. Once the cycle begins, every action and every objection just looks like petty partisan bickering. I think it is likely that the society is going to stumble and bumble its way through this cycle with plenty of arguing and hard feelings. Hopefully, this can be a source of inspiration for adequate training before the next cycle comes around.

[Josh Martin]

New information that came out today: Bylaws require that consent of all nominees be obtained; apparently one of the people selected by the nominating committee declined the nomination. That would mean (I think) that the committee must reconvene to fill that position (regarless of how they adjourned the last one because their job is not done untilt he slate is presented at

the election meeting),

You are correct. If a nominee declines, the committee is automatically revived and must meet again, provided there is sufficient time to do so. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 421, lines 2-5)

but what happened was the chair individually spoke with the other members and told them that so and so declined, did they have a problem replacing him/her with such and such. They replaced the name and have published the slate (election is not for several months, but again, bylaws require that the slate be published x days in advance of the election). This would seem to be in violation of the requirements that all voting members be together for discussion. Is there any recourse here? As always, thank you all!

If it is impractical for a committee to meet, the committee's report may include what is agreed to by every one of its members. Failing that, the committee may only make decisions at a properly called meeting where a quorum is present. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 485, lines 20-35). If not all of the members are in agreement, the chairman should call a meeting, and if he fails to do so, any two members of the committee may call a meeting. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 482, lines 19-22) If the chair attempts to assert at such a meeting that any decision reached through his consultation with members is valid, you may raise a Point of Order and appeal from the ruling of the chair if necessary. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 247, lines 19-25) A majority vote in the negative is sufficient to overturn the chair's ruling. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 250, lines 9-11) The committee may then properly determine who shall replace the withdrawn nominee. After that is completed, you may also attempt to reconsider, rescind, or amend the other nominations.

If you are unable to get a meeting of the committee together and the chairman improperly attempts to include a decision made outside of a meeting and without the consent of all members in the committee's report, you could raise a Point of Order and appeal at the time the report is presented. This could remove that part of the report, and the chair and his supporters would need to nominate that person from the floor. The rest of the report would be unaffected as it was adopted properly.

[Guest Jo]

Thanks to everyone! I learn so much coming here.