[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Is the default process correctly described?
Jon wrote: | It looks like we have consensus that I've got the default process more | or less right. Let's work on this in the background to be clear on | the details. ... | I didn't mean to limit the right of the committee to schedule | meetings. I now think that a more accurate expansion would be | | Regular meetings of the committee shall be held at a | minimum of four (4) times per calendar year and at such | additional times as the committee may determine or as the | Board of Directors may provide. fine. | What other aspects of my interpretation of the default process are in | question? We have the question (best settled in conversation rather than in email) of interpreting the language about informal meetings. It's apparently very trivial. I'd also written: >I notice that there's no language saying when a meeting may begin (I'm sure there's something in Robert's, but havn't looked yet). It seems to me that I've been in meetings that could not begin until a quorum was present. Clarifying the threshold for meetingness may help a bit. And now, reading Robert's, it appears that the relevant part is p. 24, Call to Order: "When the time of a meeting has arrived, the presiding officer opens it, after he has determined that a quorum is present, by calling the meeting to order." Note you can't have a meeting without a quorum. So that answers my question (but confuses me further about informal meetings, never mind). I first looked at p. 82, where I find that "A meeting of an assembly is a single official gathering of its members in one room or area ...." If we are going to permit telephonic meetings, we may need to say explicitly that they're governed by Robert's, because that language doesn't cover distributed meetings. ("Robert's for Chat Rooms" can't be far away.) I also had not understood: | When a meeting is adjourned for lack of a quorum, it shall | not be necessary to give any notice of the time and place | of such adjourned meeting or of the business to be | transacted at such meeting, other than by announcement at | the meeting at which the adjournment is taken, except as | provided in Section 10 of this Article. | | [Otherwise any two members could generate a process | blizzard by continously invoking their right to call a | meeting and thus calling into action the system for | giving notice of meetings.] Please explain. Can they not anyway? regards, Terry
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC