Bylaws - Indicate Meeting Date

[keefe]

The first section of the article on meetings should fix the day on which regular meetings of the society are to be held—as by specifying, for example, "the first Friday of each month." If the words "unless otherwise ordered by the Society [or "Executive Board"]" are added, the date can be changed in an unusual circumstance, but only for that single meeting on that particular occasion, and not for a period of time including several meetings. To change the general rule fixing the time for meetings would require amendment of the bylaws. The hour and place at which meetings are to be held should not be specified in the bylaws, but should be established by a standing rule (2) adopted by the society or, if it is empowered to do so, by the executive board.

We are deciding if our bylaws should indicate when our Board of Trustees and Church Council meet.  For me it seems that it should specify at least the date such as "second Thursday of each month" similar to the example given above would be best.  Personally, I think having this makes it easier to find people willing to be nominated for a position because they can see in general if it fits in their schedule.  I thought I had read before if the date isn't specified at a minimum it should state who can call the meeting but I am unable to find this.  

[Gary Novosielski]

The language about who can call meetings is applicable to Special Meetings.

Regular meetings, such as those set in the bylaws do not need "calling", and if set in the bylaws take place automatically on the date(s) specified.

The bylaws definitely sholuld have language on Special Meetings as well, or they cannot be held at all.

[keefe]

Gary,

Thank you for your response. 

So is it best for the regular meetings to have dates specified in the bylaws?  If bylaws allow for a called meeting (special meeting) then it should indicate who can call that meeting, correct?

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, and having a provision for canceling a regular meeting, using language like that which you quoted is probably a good idea, depending on the liklihood of blizzards or hurricanes in your regioin.  Without such a provision, the meeting must be held.

A typical rule regarding special meetings would authorize the president to call them, and would also provide a method for going around a president who refused to consider the wishes of the memers to have a meeting.  The secondary method usually involves a certain minimum number of members issuing a request to the Secretary, who would issue the call for the special meeting, even if the president did not like it.

[Richard Brown]

18 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Yes, and having a provision for canceling a regular meeting, using language like that which you quoted is probably a good idea, depending on the liklihood of blizzards or hurricanes in your regioin.  Without such a provision, the meeting must be held.

I don't  know that I would  go so far as to say that without a provision for canceling meetings, a scheduled meeting MUST be held regardless of the circumstances:  blizzard, hurricane, flood, riots, etc.   It is true that RONR contains no provision for canceling a meeting, but it certainly doesn't say the meeting MUST be held regardless of circumstances.  Common sense must come into play at some point.

In reality, it is quite common for presidents to announce that meetings have been "canceled" regardless of whether there is authorization in the bylaws or rules for doing so.  And if it is in the middle of a blizzard or hurricane you can be pretty sure that nobody is going to show up and the meeting is not going to be held. 

[keefe]

Great advice, truly appreciated!  The members of this forum are a fantastic resource.

[Gary Novosielski]

23 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I don't  know that I would  go so far as to say that without a provision for canceling meetings, a scheduled meeting MUST be held regardless of the circumstances:  blizzard, hurricane, flood, riots, etc.   It is true that RONR contains no provision for canceling a meeting, but it certainly doesn't say the meeting MUST be held regardless of circumstances.  Common sense must come into play at some point.

In reality, it is quite common for presidents to announce that meetings have been "canceled" regardless of whether there is authorization in the bylaws or rules for doing so.  And if it is in the middle of a blizzard or hurricane you can be pretty sure that nobody is going to show up and the meeting is not going to be held. 

Common sense may say one thing and RONR another.  Wouldn't be the first time <grinduck>.

But I think it's still correct to say that according to the rules in RONR, the meeting must be held.  The fact that a president who is not authorized to cancel a meeting announces that it is canceled does not prevent those with snow chains and a contempt for danger from holding the meeting anyway.