Phone participation in in-person mtg.

[Guest RonD]

Our small association by-laws adopt RONR for Board meetings and also specifically allow telephone conference call meetings as long as all directors participating in such a meeting can simultaneously hear each other.

We have an in-person BOD meeting, properly called,in which one board member cannot make in person but wants to call in. I am confused on RONR's handling of this - I am under the impression from RONR that the member really can't participate in an in-person meeting by telephone. Am I correct?

Thanks

Ron

[hmtcastle]

I am under the impression from RONR that the member really can't participate in an in-person meeting by telephone. Am I correct?

Your bylaws supersede RONR. What about this violates your bylaws?

Won't all directors participating in such a meeting simultaneously hear each other?

[Rob Elsman]

Our small association by-laws adopt RONR for Board meetings and also specifically allow telephone conference call meetings as long as all directors participating in such a meeting can simultaneously hear each other.

We have an in-person BOD meeting, properly called,in which one board member cannot make in person but wants to call in. I am confused on RONR's handling of this - I am under the impression from RONR that the member really can't participate in an in-person meeting by telephone. Am I correct?

Thanks

Ron

In my opinion, the use of "teleconference" in RONR (10th ed.), p. 482, l. 30, is not intended to mean one member trying to hang in there by speaker phone or someone at the meeting holding up a cell phone. You can contact your local telephone company to learn what is a "conference call", which is more my idea of what is meant by a "teleconference".

[hmtcastle]

In my opinion, the use of "teleconference" in RONR is not intended to mean one member trying to hang in there by speaker phone or someone at the meeting holding up a cell phone. You can contact your local telephone company to learn what is a "conference call", which is more my idea of what is meant by a "teleconference".

So eight members can't be in one room while one member is in another room? What about five in one room and four in another? Where do you draw the line?

[Rob Elsman]

So eight members can't be in one room while one member is in another room? What about five in one room and four in another? Where do you draw the line?

The requirement in the general parliamentary law is found in RONR (10th ed.), p. 1, ll. 12-14.

[Weldon Merritt]

The requirement in the general parliamentary law is found in RONR (10th ed.), p. 1, ll. 12-14.

But we already know that this organization’s bylaws supersede the general parliamentary law, so that really is not relevant. I would be hard-pressed to find a reason that “teleconference” could not include one member calling in and everyone else physically present in the same room, so long as all of them “can simultaneously hear each other,” as required.

[Rob Elsman]

But we already know that this organization’s bylaws supersede the general parliamentary law, so that really is not relevant. I would be hard-pressed to find a reason that “teleconference” could not include one member calling in and everyone else physically present in the same room, so long as all of them “can simultaneously hear each other,” as required.

The bylaw only "...specifically allow telephone conference call meetings...", which does not, in my opinion, include one member hanging on the end of a cell phone or speaker phone, regardless whether or not he hears. Hearing seems to be a dependent condition on there being a "telephone conference call meeting" to begin with, which a speaker phone or cell phone is not.

[Weldon Merritt]

The bylaw only "...specifically allow telephone conference call meetings...", which does not, in my opinion, include one member hanging on the end of a cell phone or speaker phone, regardless whether or not he hears. Hearing seems to be a dependent condition on there being a "telephone conference call meeting" to begin with, which a speaker phone or cell phone is not.

Well, that's your opinion. My opinion is that it can include any number of phones, from two to as many members as there are in attandace, with any number of members on any of the phones. But it really is up to the organiation to interpret its own rules.

[Guest RonD]

One of the issues we are twisted over is if there is a difference between an in-person meeting called for at a specific location versus a meeting by telephone conference? It seems, at least to this novice, that the page 1 cite does become relevant.

Thoughts?

Thanks again.

Ron

[Josh Martin]

One of the issues we are twisted over is if there is a difference between an in-person meeting called for at a specific location versus a meeting by telephone conference? It seems, at least to this novice, that the page 1 cite does become relevant.

Thoughts?

The requirement on RONR, 10th ed., pg. 1 is that it must be "under equivalent conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants." The question is whether one member "calling in" constitutes "equivalent conditions of opportunity." The members of the assembly, who are familiar with the particular circumstances of the people and technology involved, will be better equipped to determine the answer to that question then the members of this forum.

[Gary Novosielski]

Our small association by-laws adopt RONR for Board meetings and also specifically allow telephone conference call meetings as long as all directors participating in such a meeting can simultaneously hear each other.

We have an in-person BOD meeting, properly called,in which one board member cannot make in person but wants to call in. I am confused on RONR's handling of this - I am under the impression from RONR that the member really can't participate in an in-person meeting by telephone. Am I correct?

Thanks

Ron

That's fine, as long as all the members in the conference room can hear the person calling in. I presume you have a speakerphone in the conference room.

The meeting is then a "teleconference" with one person using one phone, and all of the other members simultaneously using the other phone. Unless your bylaws specify a minimum number of phones that must be used before it can be called a teleconference, I see nothing wrong with it.

(Although I would probably draw the line on calling it a teleconference if only ONE phone were used.)

[Tim Wynn]

Our small association by-laws adopt RONR for Board meetings and also specifically allow telephone conference call meetings as long as all directors participating in such a meeting can simultaneously hear each other.

We have an in-person BOD meeting, properly called,in which one board member cannot make in person but wants to call in. I am confused on RONR's handling of this - I am under the impression from RONR that the member really can't participate in an in-person meeting by telephone. Am I correct?

Thanks

Ron

Neither RONR nor anyone here can tell you if what you're describing is in accordance with your bylaws.

I think Rob's point is well taken, that a distinction can be made between a meeting by teleconference and a meeting where a member is allowed to participate by telephone. Would a call for division be the same in both situations? Obviously the member on the phone could not have equal opportunity to verify the vote by hearing the members stand.

[hmtcastle]

I think Rob's point is well taken, that a distinction can be made between a meeting by teleconference and a meeting where a member is allowed to participate by telephone. Would a call for division be the same in both situations? Obviously the member on the phone could not have equal opportunity to verify the vote by hearing the members stand.

How about a meeting where one member is present and all the other members are on conference call? It's simply a matter of perspective. There's no objective "distinction".

And the fact that a rising vote is not appropriate for a meeting held by conference call is no more relevant than saying that a show of hands is not appropriate for a meeting of blind people or a voice vote is not appropriate for a meeting of deaf people. Common sense should prevail.

[Tim Wynn]

How about a meeting where one member is present and all the other members are on conference call? It's simply a matter of perspective. There's no objective "distinction".

It's not about the numbers. There is a distinction. If everyone hangs up and there's still a meeting somewhere, I'd say it's not a true teleconference.

And the fact that a rising vote is not appropriate for a meeting held by conference call is no more relevant than saying that a show of hands is not appropriate for a meeting of blind people or a voice vote is not appropriate for a meeting of deaf people. Common sense should prevail.

That's a perfect example. If a single member is blind, I suspect his rights will get trampled here and there. I doubt the assembly is inclined to adjust all the rules to fit the blind just to protect one member. I also suspect when one person is attending via phone call, the assembly is less inclined to adapt all the rules so as to protect the rights of the person on the phone.

[hmtcastle]

I doubt the assembly is inclined to adjust all the rules to fit the blind just to protect one member.

I always thought that was the mark of a civilized society.

[Tim Wynn]

I always thought that was the mark of a civilized society.

It is... but we're talking about deliberative assemblies.

[David A Foulkes]

And the fact that a rising vote is not appropriate for a meeting held by conference call is no more relevant than saying that a show of hands is not appropriate for a meeting of blind people or a voice vote is not appropriate for a meeting of deaf people. Common sense should prevail.

That's a perfect example. If a single member is blind, I suspect his rights will get trampled here and there. I doubt the assembly is inclined to adjust all the rules to fit the blind just to protect one member.

For a "real life example" in this regard, one of our members (and Trustee on the Board) is in a wheelchair. Having recently re-read §4, in particular page 42ff, and on the topic of the chair verifying an inconclusive voice vote by (or "under certain conditions" p.43 l. 9) taking a rising vote, this member would not be able to participate in that manner. I'd say we would be inclined to make adjustments in this regard by taking a show of hands vote, common sense prevailing. We have never been faced with this circumstance, but should anyone call for a Division of the Assembly, thus "requiring the vote to be taken again by rising" (p. 270 ll. 27-28), and where a show of hands is not a Division of the Assembly (p. 270 ll. 29-30), it seems to me this requirement deprives this member of the right to vote.