Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Overturn of meeting/ declaring it void


Guest John

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Guest John said:

Can a meeting be overturned, declare void, after the fact if discovered the rules were not followed correctly?

Generally, no. Most violations of the rules must be challenged at the time. There are a few continuing breaches for particularly severe violations. Additionally, even fewer violations would be of such a nature as to make the meeting itself void (as opposed to the business conducted at the meeting).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say a special meeting is held.  A quorum is present and accepted in good faith at the time of the meeting, but subsequent to the meeting it is determined there was not a quorum because one attendee did not meet the qualifications. The Special Meeting involved recall of Board members, in other words, a serious action.  The actual vote to recall done in the meeting met the majority requirements. The meeting met all the requirements of the bylaws except for the quorum. The convening group for the special meeting when it learned there was not a quorum declared the meeting was not valid.  Should the meeting and results have stood according to Robert's Rules. The quorum was not challenged at the time of the meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Chris NM said:

Let's say a special meeting is held.  A quorum is present and accepted in good faith at the time of the meeting, but subsequent to the meeting it is determined there was not a quorum because one attendee did not meet the qualifications. The Special Meeting involved recall of Board members, in other words, a serious action.  The actual vote to recall done in the meeting met the majority requirements. The meeting met all the requirements of the bylaws except for the quorum. The convening group for the special meeting when it learned there was not a quorum declared the meeting was not valid.  Should the meeting and results have stood according to Robert's Rules. The quorum was not challenged at the time of the meeting.

The meeting itself is valid. If there is clear and convincing proof that a quorum was not present, however, the actions taken in the absence of a quorum are null and void. It is up to the assembly itself to make this determination, however, not the "convening group."

Would one attendee have made a difference? Additionally, what exactly is meant by the claim that "one attendee did not meet the qualifications?"

As to these recall procedures, I trust that this was in compliance with custom rules in your organization's bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2017 at 8:02 PM, Josh Martin said:

The meeting itself is valid. If there is clear and convincing proof that a quorum was not present, however, the actions taken in the absence of a quorum are null and void. It is up to the assembly itself to make this determination, however, not the "convening group."

What does it mean to say that a meeting is "valid", if the actions taken at he meeting are null and void? (I realize that there's some small number of things that you can do without a quorum, but what would constitute an "invalid" meeting?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Silvertomster said:

What does it mean to say that a meeting is "valid", if the actions taken at he meeting are null and void? (I realize that there's some small number of things that you can do without a quorum, but what would constitute an "invalid" meeting?)

In this case, it would mean that the meeting was properly called.   If a group of members got together and said, without authority, "We a having this meeting," it would not be a valid meeting.  If the bylaws required  30  days notice for a meeting, and only 10 days notice was given, that would not be a valid meeting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Silvertomster said:

What does it mean to say that a meeting is "valid", if the actions taken at he meeting are null and void? (I realize that there's some small number of things that you can do without a quorum, but what would constitute an "invalid" meeting?)

It might be a minor point, if what your concern is that what was done at the meeting seems to have been invalid  (so do you care whether the meeting -- the structure -- is called valid or invalid, when we're saying that the content of the meeting -- what was done -- was intrinsically invalid?

-- geeez, what a question!).

(O darnit, I have entirely lost track.  Are there any loose ends here?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A regular or properly called meeting is a valid meeting even if a quorum is not present, and actions taken during such a meeting at a time when a quorum was not present can be later ratified. It must first be legitimately determined that a quorum was not present when action was taken at such a meeting, however, before ratification of such action is either necessary or appropriate.

Actions taken at a meeting which is not a regular or properly called meeting cannot be ratified.

 

 

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...