Search the Community

If a meeting is started with a quorum and at some point the quorum is lost, is the meeting automatically adjourned? Or does the normal rules still govern requiring a motion to adjourn, a second and a majority affirmative vote?

I would be very grateful for input on the following. My question is four-fold. When a chair unilaterally attempts to rule a motion out of order on the basis that it is "dilatory," does the assembly have the authority to decide whether the purportedly "dilatory" motion can be heard? It seems to me the mechanism for this is an appeal of the decision of the chair. Would you agree? When a chair refuses to hear an appeal of the decision of the chair in such a matter, it seems to me that the majority must have a means for asserting the will of the majority to safeguard its democratic processes. RR appears to provide for such a mechanism in the motion to Suspend the Rules to permit the next highest-ranking officer to take over the chairing of the meeting, if 2/3rds agree that is what should happen. Would you agree? It also seems to me that the Rules are very clear on what should then happen: if the chair refuses to hear the motion on the Suspension of the Rules, the "maker" of that motion gets to take the vote on the question. This seems essential to the democracy of an assembly, which cannot have a chair permitted to execute three unilateral decisions in a row without the majority having the means to express its will. And so this question is, where a chair refuses to entertain a motion to Suspend the Rules to put someone else into the chair, does the mover or maker of the Suspension have the authority to call to the assembly to know whether two-thirds of its members are in support of the suspension? Final question: surely the chair does NOT have the authority in the face of such developments, simply to declare the meeting ADJOURNED and leave the room? That in effect gives the chair unrestrained authority to refuse to hear from and honour the will of the assembly. Very much looking forward to hearing input on these matters! Thank you for your time.

If a member of an elected body believes the chairman is prematurely adjourning a meeting, what procedural options does she/he have to stop the adjournment?

I attended our Annual General Meeting for our Condo Association. I waited patiently while other owners were recognized by the President to rise and take the podium. When the President recognized me, I stood, took the podium and started to speak. After about a minute and while I was speaking, the President took a motion from the floor to adjourn the meeting. I promptly told the President numerous times that I had not yielded the floor. He ignored me and took a vote. The meeting was adjourned and I was left standing at the podium. Can a meeting be adjourned while a member is speaking and the member has not yielded the floor to the chair? I do have a copy of Robert's Rules of Order 11th edition, but it doesn't answer my question since in this case I already had the floor. Page 240 (5) If the chair learns, immediately after declaring the assembly adjourned, that a member seeking the floor for one of these purposes had risen and addressed the chair before the adjournment was declared, then, since the adjournment was improper and this breach was promptly noted, the chair must call the meeting back to order---but only long enough or the purpose for which the member legitimately sought the floor. Many thanks. Nancy