Special Meetings

[maryjane]

If Executive Board consist of Officers and Standing Committee Chairmen (all voting members), can the officers have a special meeting without notifying the Committee chairmen of the meeting (even though no action was taken [and no minutes], only discussion) for a vote on item at a later Executive Board Meeting (with all present)?

[Tim Wynn]

If Executive Board consist of Officers and Standing Committee Chairmen (all voting members), can the officers have a special meeting without notifying the Committee chairmen of the meeting (even though no action was taken [and no minutes], only discussion) for a vote on item at a later Executive Board Meeting (with all present)?

Special meetings can only be called if authorized in the bylaws, and if so authorized, they can only be called in accordance with the provision in the bylaws. Special meetings require notice to be sent to all members. Otherwise, any business transacted would be null and void. Since, in your case, no business is being transacted, it doesn't seem to really matter. The truth is, what you describe isn't actually a special meeting. It's just a gathering of persons who happened to be members of the same board. At such a gathering, no business can be transacted.

[Tim Wynn]

See RONR(10th ed.), p. 89-90 for Special Meetings.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

If Executive Board consist of Officers and Standing Committee Chairmen (all voting members),

can the officers have a special meeting

without notifying the Committee chairmen of the meeting

(even though no action was taken [and no minutes], only discussion)

for a vote on item at a later Executive Board Meeting (with all present)?

If all they are going to do is TALK, then go ahead.

There is no gag rule in Robert's Rules of Order.

• No rule will prevent one officer from TALKING to other officers.

• No rule in Robert's Rules of Order implies that dinners, BBQs, cocktails, coffees, etc., are outlawed if the eaters/drinkers are all officers of the same organization.

Ah! But beware!

That gathering is not a "meeting" of the organization.

That gathering cannot do anything official. - They can't vote. They can't give previous notice. They can't hear reports (in an official capacity). They can't make motions.

But (a.) chatting; (b.) discussing; (c.) planning; (d.) conspiring; (e.) cabal-ing; (f.) caviling; (g.) kvetching; . . .

. . . are all allowed.

It's a free country, you know. - No one has lost their (U.S. Constitution) First Amendment rights of free assembly and free speech.

[hmtcastle]

That gathering is not a "meeting" of the organization.

It's apparently not even a "meeting" of the Executive Board.

[Guest Mary Jane]

If all they are going to do is TALK, then go ahead.

There is no gag rule in Robert's Rules of Order.

• No rule will prevent one officer from TALKING to other officers.

• No rule in Robert's Rules of Order implies that dinners, BBQs, cocktails, coffees, etc., are outlawed if the eaters/drinkers are all officers of the same organization.

Ah! But beware!

That gathering is not a "meeting" of the organization.

That gathering cannot do anything official. - They can't vote. They can't give previous notice. They can't hear reports (in an official capacity). They can't make motions.

But (a.) chatting; (b.) discussing; (c.) planning; (d.) conspiring; (e.) cabal-ing; (f.) caviling; (g.) kvetching; . . .

. . . are all allowed.

It's a free country, you know. - No one has lost their (U.S. Constitution) First Amendment rights of free assembly and free speech.

[Gary Novosielski]

It's a free country, you know. - No one has lost their (U.S. Constitution) First Amendment rights of free assembly and free speech.

But if these folks were public officials, this sort of activity would quickly run them afoul of the Sunshine Laws in their state, in which case they should be asking a lawyer about their situation.

[maryjane]

Well, I guess the email sent out to call an "officers only meeting" to discuss a budget admendment was just a social event.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Well, I guess the email sent out to call an "officers only meeting" to discuss a budget amendment was just a social event.

Could well be!

I can remember times when we had a work party for an organization (a mailing had to get out), and the only "invitees" were "the usual suspects" (i.e., the officers).

While stuffing envelopes and stapling sheets, we talked "business."

Q. Was this "talk" in violation of a rule of Robert's Rules of Order?

A. No.

Q. Was the "invite" improper, in that the invite only invited the geographically-desirable officers?

A. No.

Q. Was the fact that we 'talked shop' while we stapled, spindled, and mutilated our paper sheets, somehow immoral, illegal, or fattening?

A. No.

Q. Would the situation be any different if the event wasn't a mailing work party, but was instead, e.g., (a.) a pot-luck; (b.) a tail-gate party; (c.) birthday bash; (d.) a bris [Hebrew, "brit milah"]; (e.) a quinceanera [spanish, "coming-out party"]?

A. No.

[Tim Wynn]

Well, I guess the email sent out to call an "officers only meeting" to discuss a budget admendment was just a social event.

You make a good point, but what is being said here is that, regardless of the officers' intentions, they did not have an official meeting, so they could not have transacted any business in the name of the executive board.