Chair being obstinate

[lipets]

A new committee was formed to do a revision of a large old set of bylaws.

The chair is not Internet savvy, kinda senior in age.

So each of the other members is calling each other individually, now he says we shouldn’t do that?

He says everyone needs to be included in the conversations.

So I said lets try "Go to meeting", he don’t want to, he wants it done by email, I said it’s impossible to email between the 7 committee member a doc of almost 100 pages.

I need help in who decides, all others want to try "go to meeting" he as the chair says no.

I need if possible a cite to show.

Can the chair have this much control?

I’m trying not to hit him over the head, using kid gloves.

[hmtcastle]

A new committee was formed to do a revision of a large old set of bylaws.

The chair is not Internet savvy, kinda senior in age.

You mean he does things like put too many lines between sentences?

So each of the other members is calling each other individually, now he says we shouldn’t do that?

He says everyone needs to be included in the conversations.

So I said lets try "Go to meeting", he don’t want to, he wants it done by email, I said it’s impossible to email between the 7 committee member a doc of almost 100 pages.

I need help in who decides, all others want to try "go to meeting" he as the chair says no.

I need if possible a cite to show.

Can the chair have this much control?

I’m trying not to hit him over the head, using kid gloves.

You can't use "Go To Meeting" or any other kind of electronic (absentee) meeting (e.g. e-mail) unless your bylaws (or whoever established your committee) authorizes you to do so.

So your chair, despite being kinda senior in age, is partly right. And partly wrong. But he has only one vote.

[Rob Elsman]

A new committee was formed to do a revision of a large old set of bylaws.

The chair is not Internet savvy, kinda senior in age.

So each of the other members is calling each other individually, now he says we shouldn’t do that?

He says everyone needs to be included in the conversations.

So I said lets try "Go to meeting", he don’t want to, he wants it done by email, I said it’s impossible to email between the 7 committee member a doc of almost 100 pages.

I need help in who decides, all others want to try "go to meeting" he as the chair says no.

I need if possible a cite to show.

Can the chair have this much control?

I’m trying not to hit him over the head, using kid gloves.

The usual situation is that the committee meets in a single room to hold its meetings. If the bylaws specifically permit it, the committee can meet by teleconference or videoconference, but there will be a need to adopt special rules of order that take into account the special circumstances of these kinds of meetings. See RONR (10th ed.), pp. 482, 483.

[lipets]

Sorry forgot to say our directive says "communicate electronically to the maximum extent possible"

[hmtcastle]

Sorry forgot to say our directive says "communicate electronically to the maximum extent possible"

To repeat, the chair has only one vote.

[Rob Elsman]

Sorry forgot to say our directive says "communicate electronically to the maximum extent possible"

It sounds to me like meeting together in a room is going to be the best bet, since it seems that various members have different capabilities and/or skills to communicate electronically.

[lipets]

We are a national org, the committtee are spread over 7 states

[lipets]

To repeat, the chair has only one vote.

any reference please

[Rob Elsman]

We are a national org, the committtee are spread over 7 states

Go to the library and read RONR (10th ed.), p. 482, l. 28, through p. 483, l. 5. The paragraph is quite clearly written.

[lipets]

Thank you, I have a copy reading now.

[Rob Elsman]

Thank you, I have a copy reading now.

Ah! That's great!

[Josh Martin]

Sorry forgot to say our directive says "communicate electronically to the maximum extent possible"

We are a national org, the committtee are spread over 7 states

If a committee is appointed from different sections of the country with the expectation that its work will be done by correspondence, it may do so, and its reports consist of what is agreed to by a majority of the members. (RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 485-486) It seems quite clear that both requirements for this rule apply here.

[lipets]

Ok I'm going to challenge the chair on several points but besides being this committees chair is the orgs Parliamentarian and he has the Presidents ear.

I know the chair can't boot me off, if I rock the "old" boat.

However, the president appointed me. (good old boys club)

So

Any risks of my being removed?

I didn't see anything on removal from a committee in Ronr

options?

-----

A little background it is an old Org run by same, a younger generation in the Org want things changed,

the board agreed and puts a call to submit resumes for a committee to revise the bylaws.

I don't want to come on so strong they are taken back.

Jim

[George Mervosh]

Ok I'm going to challenge the chair on several points but besides being this committees chair is the orgs Parliamentarian and he has the Presidents ear.

I know the chair can't boot me off, if I rock the "old" boat.

However, the president appointed me. (good old boys club)

So

Any risks of my being removed?

I didn't see anything on removal from a committee in Ronr

options?

-----

A little background it is an old Org run by same, a younger generation in the Org want things changed,

the board agreed and puts a call to submit resumes for a committee to revise the bylaws.

I don't want to come on so strong they are taken back.

Jim

Jim, start reading on p. 169, line 28.

[Gary c Tesser]

[snip]

I know the chair can't boot me off, if I rock the "old" boat.

[

GcT:]

How do you know? See p. 169, line 30 - p. 170, line 2 or 6. And 479 - 480.

[Jimbo2010:]

However, the president appointed me. (good old boys club)

So

Any risks of my being removed?

I didn't see anything on removal from a committee in Ronr.

[GcT:]

Ya do now, eh?

-----

[snip]

[Edited to add:]

Ah, and since it's probably unclear, I applaud Jimbo's, of whatever year, efforts to rock the boat, however old or new.

[Josh Martin]

However, the president appointed me. (good old boys club)

So

Any risks of my being removed?

I didn't see anything on removal from a committee in Ronr

If the President appointed you, he also has the power to remove you. So the risk will be based on how much the President likes you.

[lipets]

Great, that makes me feel real safe!

I think I'll make a list of all his directives and send it to a few others and email a joint note of concern of a heavy gavel.

Ok I'll bite, can being removed be appealed if it happened?

Update........

Anyone remember the movie "color of money" with Tom cruise playing a pool shark?

" It's like a nightmare, isn't it? It just keeps getting worse and worse"

New email from the chair.

please let me know by Sept. 10th if you have any questions concerning what needs to be in bylaws and how you suggest we may want to consider changing our current Constitution.

We just got started now he wants this on that date, without discussion?

I guess I need to cancel my holiday plans and crack'n.

[Josh Martin]

Ok I'll bite, can being removed be appealed if it happened?

How exactly did it come to pass that the chair appointed you to this committee? Was it by way of an adopted motion? Do the Bylaws give the President the authority to appoint the committees?

[lipets]

How exactly did it come to pass that the chair appointed you to this committee? Was it by way of an adopted motion? Do the Bylaws give the President the authority to appoint the committees?

Nominations were asked to be submitted, the chair did a phone interview, he forwarded my nomination qualifications to all current committee members, two spoke up in strong support others just said acceptable.

Chair then forwarded to President saying that I was acceptable along with all notes, he appointed me.

Bylaws give him authority.

[Josh Martin]

Bylaws give him authority.

Then no, there's no appeal process (unless the Bylaws mention that too).

[lipets]

tks Josh

[hmtcastle]

please let me know by Sept. 10th if you have any questions concerning what needs to be in bylaws and how you suggest we may want to consider changing our current Constitution.

On this forum, September 10th is light-years away.*

One thing you might want to consider is whether you need two separate documents (i.e. a constitution and bylaws). RONR suggests having just one is preferable. See pp.548-573.

*Using this measure of distance as a measure of time is a common error.

[lipets]

I think we have a consensus on that.

The issue we are taking about is what to do with 40 pages of silly policy.

[Trina]

Sorry forgot to say our directive says "communicate electronically to the maximum extent possible"

We are a national org, the committtee are spread over 7 states

....

New email from the chair.

please let me know by Sept. 10th if you have any questions concerning what needs to be in bylaws and how you suggest we may want to consider changing our current Constitution.

We just got started now he wants this on that date, without discussion?

....

The directive, about communicating electronically to the maximum extent possible, was clearly sadly lacking in detail (the kind of detail suggested by RONR p. 483 ll. 2-5). Now you have the chair wanting to jump ahead to the business of the committee, before the committee has even figured out how to conduct business in the first place. I don't believe RONR will give you direct guidance on how to get yourselves out of gridlock, although the pages cited by Mr. Elsman and Mr. Martin should provide some guidance. Have you looked into the practicalities of setting up a teleconference?

You may want to look at:

http://www.aipparl.org/pdf/AIPemeet5.PDF

for some useful discussion about conducting business electronically.

It's hard enough to get started on the work of bylaws revision when all the committee members are gathered in the same room; it sounds like you guys haven't even reached the starting line yet (despite what your chair seems to think).

[Josh Martin]

The issue we are taking about is what to do with 40 pages of silly policy.

Separate most of it out of the Bylaws, and adopt them as special rules of order or standing rules. Possibly even consider whether some of the policies are necessary at all. At 40 pages it's quite possible there's some junk in there. The Bylaws are the place for the most important rules of the organization, not every little administrative detail.