Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

board member


Guest blong

Recommended Posts

Mr. Chairman "call meeting"

We have a problem in our board meeting.  We have a schedule monthly meeting that was schedule to met every second week of every month.  When we met, we decided/agreed to moved the meeting to a different date.  When that day came, we attanded  the meeting, but qourum was not present.  Mr. Chairman canceled the meeting.  The next day Mr. Chairman called the meeting back.  Can Mr. Chairman do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Guest blong said:

thanks.  But the meeting continues, do to the fact that Mr. Chairman said he have to right/authority to call a meeting.  The agenda are the same one as previous day canceled agenda.  Is this possible?  

What exactly do your bylaws say about special meetings, who may call them, and how much notice is required?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your bylaws don't say anything about special meetings and if RONR is your parliamentary authority, then you cannot have special meetings at all.

Are you sure your bylaws don't say anything about special meetings?

Edited to add: your bylaws might not refer to them as special meetings. The bylaws might say something to the effect that "the president may call meetings upon giving 10 days notice to the membership" etc. 

 Just out of curiosity, do your bylaws say anything about regular meetings of the society?

Edited by Richard Brown
Added last two paragraphs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, J. J. said:

Is it possible that an adjourned was set at the call of the chair. 

J.J., I agree and almost said as much but decided to stick with the "special  meeting" scenario that guest Blong seems  to think is what happened.  However, I suspect he might not be aware of what an "adjourned meeting" is and that the the meeting was not simply "canceled" (guest Blong's term) or adjourned, but adjourned to meet again at the call of the chair. 

Guest Blong, setting an adjourned meeting is one of the four things that can legitimately be done at an inquorate meeting.  See pages 347-348 in the 11th edition of RONR.   An adjourned meeting is described in more detail on pages 94-95.   It is also mentioned in many other places in the book.  The motioin "Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn is covered extensively on pages 242-246.

Looking at Guest Blong's original question and his follow up responses, I don't think that setting an adjourned meeting is what happened, but it is possible.  Setting an adjourned meeting is also something guest  Blong and his organization might keep in mind next time a quorum fails to show up for an important meeting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

The meeting was held and will have minutes, even without a quorum. Mr. Chairman's called meeting is invalid unless your bylaws give him the authority to do that.

Well, the meeting SHOULD have minutes. You want to make a bet on whether it actually does?  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks everyone for clarify that situation up for me.  But just said that Mr. Chairman have the authority to "call a meeting," and our bylaw does not state anywhere giving Mr. Chairman the authority to do so and we are just following Robert's Rules of Order; can Mr. Chairman use the business items/agenda that was on the previous canceled(as mention above) to conduct the meeting?  Or how many business items should we have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the first three posts here, I regret to disagree with my heroes and aver (or assert, I forget which is which) that the president, though monumentally sloppily, intended to continue the meeting that could not go on because it was inquorate; and, dancing on hot coals, I'll toy with saying that the assembly, tacitly, went along with this.

ON the other hand.  Of course Mr. Chairman does not have the authority to "call a meeting" unless the bylaws grant him this authority, which apparently they do not.

Y'know, here's the thing.  When dealing with organizations whose procedures are messy and ill-informed, advice has to be given in that context.  Yes this is the website -- indeed, the (pardon me, "The") World's Premier Internet Parliamentary Forum -- whose avowed purpose is to promulgate The Wisdom According to RONR ... but c'mon, half the time it's a Dear Abby column about organizational dysfunction. (Yes, snif sob.)

So really.  Let them have their continued meeting, however sloppily arranged, but, and here's the crux, apparently well-intentioned.  Moving forward (wonderful neo-cliche we have for a couple of years now!), let's educate them on how to be less messy, emphasizing that mess does mess with people's rights and the efficient functioning of the organization ... but give 'em a break.  The do need a meeting, and maybe this is the best way, all things considered, for them to have one.

8 hours ago, Guest blong said:

can Mr. Chairman use the business items/agenda that was on the previous canceled(as mention above) to conduct the meeting?  Or how many business items should we have?

Lotsa luck, blong, I got no clue.  If I had to bet, I'd say (averring, or asserting, whatever) that you just got a continuation going, so there's no limit on what can be dealt with, especially as far as bringing up New Business goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Guest blong said:

thanks everyone for clarify that situation up for me.  But just said that Mr. Chairman have the authority to "call a meeting," and our bylaw does not state anywhere giving Mr. Chairman the authority to do so and we are just following Robert's Rules of Order; can Mr. Chairman use the business items/agenda that was on the previous canceled(as mention above) to conduct the meeting?  Or how many business items should we have?

No. He can't call the meeting at all. There shouldn't be any business items, because there is no meeting. Special meeting cannot be called unless your bylaws provide for them.

10 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

Looking at the first three posts here, I regret to disagree with my heroes and aver (or assert, I forget which is which) that the president, though monumentally sloppily, intended to continue the meeting that could not go on because it was inquorate; and, dancing on hot coals, I'll toy with saying that the assembly, tacitly, went along with this.

If the assembly adopted a motion (perhaps by unanimous consent) to schedule an adjourned meeting at the call of the chair, then this is proper, and the agenda will indeed be the same as the previous meeting. But it doesn't seem like that is what happened.

10 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

So really.  Let them have their continued meeting, however sloppily arranged, but, and here's the crux, apparently well-intentioned.  Moving forward (wonderful neo-cliche we have for a couple of years now!), let's educate them on how to be less messy, emphasizing that mess does mess with people's rights and the efficient functioning of the organization ... but give 'em a break.  The do need a meeting, and maybe this is the best way, all things considered, for them to have one.

I imagine any board members who are not present at the later meeting, called on extremely short notice, may have a different view on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I imagine any board members who are not present at the later meeting, called on extremely short notice, may have a different view on the matter.

Yeah?  And what do you think it'll be?  And how different would it be, from if they had paint-by-numbers established an adjourned meeting?

(Josh, what do you think that you and I are differing on, here?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

Yeah?  And what do you think it'll be?  And how different would it be, from if they had paint-by-numbers established an adjourned meeting?

(Josh, what do you think that you and I are differing on, here?)

Well, I'm not sure. Is this "give them their meeting view" of yours based on the idea that an adjourned meeting was established? If so, I suppose we only disagree on the facts. If you are sticking with this view whether or not an adjourned meeting was established, then I think we have a much larger disagreement.

My understanding of the facts is that there was no mention whatsoever of the new meeting until the day after the original meeting had adjourned. This seems to make it quite clear that this is not an adjourned meeting, and therefore, the new meeting is certainly null and void. If the bylaws are silent regarding special meetings, then the chairman has no authority to call a special meeting, despite his assertions to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Is this "give them their meeting view" of yours based on the idea that an adjourned meeting was established? If so, I suppose we only disagree on the facts. If you are sticking with this view whether or not an adjourned meeting was established, then I think we have a much larger disagreement.

No, it's not, and of course they didn't, and of course it's not proper at all..  This eccentric view is based on the idea that, while Guest blong seems to get it, Mr Chairman has no clue, and probably most of the other members haven't either.  And on the idea that Mr Chairman, and they, probably think you're talking Serbo-Croatian when you talk about adjourned vs. special meetings, and if you (or anyone else) suggest that at the next unambiguously legitimate meeting, blong or any ally of his (I presume, and maybe pray, that he has some) raises a point of order that the illegitimately (scheduled / called) announced meeting was (is? help!) null & void, you're more likely to get uproar from those members who sighed in immense relief that they finally, somehow or other, however sloppily, got their organization's business done, who perceive that you're throwing a persnickety fussbudget Mrs Grundy monkey wrench into their hard-wrought efforts.

-- assuming that anyone but Guest blong would have a clue what a point of order is (and what it's for, and how it works).

For that matter, those who ...

On 5/24/2017 at 2:46 PM, Josh Martin said:

may have a different view on the matter.

... certainly have the right to voice their objections, and for sure will prevail if propriety gets its due.

Yes, we're here to talk about the rules. But you can only teach people as much as they're willing to learn, and capable of.

... So, maybe, diplomatically, we can suggest that Guest blong (and his allies, I assume he has acquired a few more since I started typing this in April), at the next legitimate meeting, gently point out that irregularities in procedure in the last few meetings call for the ratification of the decisions made at that infamous enormity of a pseudo-meeting that Mad Emperor Yuri* pulled (off) together.

Or maybe we could suggest that they hire as a parliamentarian Vladimir Putin, so as to pour gasoline on the fire.

_______

*Lois McMaster Bujold reference, and maybe I misspelled his name, but I'm pretty sure I got his title right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2017 at 9:30 AM, SaintCad said:

I don't know Gary.  I belonged to an organization that was the way you described: don't know the rules and don't wanna learn the rules.  It does not work well.

Of course it doesn't work well. I (as my nom de plume Gary) wasn't positing that it works well.  I was proposing to drag, kicking and screaming, these people into the late-19th-Century (when General Robert originally wrote)(and maybe even somewhat later, mirabile dictu).  -- but that we deal with them where they are, and when they are, and as they are.

Look at p. 456, lines 13 - 14, and especially ll. 14-18.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...