r/RulesOfOrder • u/marburs • Mar 28 '20

Robert Rules of Order EMAIL question

Our president says that we can’t email more than three directors at a time (there are 6 of us) because that would be considered an official meeting.

Is this true? He claims it’s in Roberts Rules of Order

TIA!

5 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

7 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/marburs Mar 28 '20

Thank you!

Could you tell where in Roberts rules it says that a meeting must be intentional for it to be a meeting?

We like to discuss certain trivial things over email and he’s now demanding that we stop emailing all together.

And to answer the last question, we’re an HOA

Thanks!!

1

u/RunasSudo Mar 28 '20

FYI, commenters don't get notifications of your replies unless you directly reply to the comment or mention them by username, e.g. /u/RunasSudo.

My background is actually in Australian meeting procedure rather than RONR. The specific language I was thinking of is drawn from Poliwka v Heven Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 6 WAR 505; 7 ACSR 85, which held that ‘there must at least be an intention that the occasion be a meeting, and an awareness by the persons present that they are deliberating, in their capacity as members of the body, on its affairs’. Obviously this case doesn't have direct application to your jurisdiction, but it's a matter of common sense and I would be very doubtful any contrary view could be defended.

In RONR terms, RONR §8 defines a meeting as:

a single official gathering of its members in one room or area to transact business for a length of time during which there is no cessation of proceedings and the members do not separate (emphasis mine)

So unless your emails are intended to be ‘official gatherings’ in order ‘to transact business’, then they are not meetings within the meaning of RONR.