canceled uncanceled recanceled meeting

[Judy Bailey]

I can't find the answer to this situation in Roberts Rules of Order anywhere

Monthly meeting was canceled at a previous meeting.   Then it was brought to the Chairman's attention that an urgent business needed to be done at that meeting.  The meeting was then "un-canceled"

Now the chairman has determined that there may not be a quorum at that meeting and he is now canceling that meeting again.  Our rules clearly state that a 10 notice must be given.  That 10 notice to was used to reinstate the meeting but the re-cancellation is not within the 10 day period. 

What is the rule?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Any rules about cancelling meetings would have to be found in your rules.

[Judy Bailey]

9 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

Any rules about cancelling meetings would have to be found in your rules.

Thanks, for confirming what I expected.   There is a 10 day rule.

 

[George Mervosh]

29 minutes ago, Judy Bailey said:

Thanks, for confirming what I expected.   There is a 10 day rule.

 

So your rule says he can cancel a meeting by providing a 10 days notice?

[Richard Brown]

Guest Judy, agreeing with both Mr. Huynh and Mr. Mervosh, please quote for us the exactly what the ten day notice requirement is in the bylaws. I suspect it is for calling meetings, not for canceling them. The wording is important.

Meetings can normally be officially cancelled only if there is express authority for doing so in the bylaws. 

[Guest Zev]

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Meetings can normally be officially cancelled only if there is express authority for doing so in the bylaws. 

Perhaps I missed something along the way, but I cannot find in RONR anything about cancelling meetings. While it may be prudent to have express authority in the bylaws, I cannot find this item as a bylaw requirement. If the Board has the authority to re-schedule a meeting as suggested in RONR/12 page 575 line 23, I would suspect that many readers may surmise that that would also include the authority to cancel a meeting. Even without such authority to cancel a meeting, in my opinion, is not the end of the world, since at the next meeting the consequences of the cancelled meeting may be dealt with if members feel strongly about it. After all, which is worse, a cancelled meeting with members showing up, some absent believing the meeting is really cancelled, or a real meeting without a subject to discuss? It is for this reason that I believe this issue to have something to do with the internal politics of the organization. If, however, the authors feel strongly about this subject, let them cook something up and insert it in the next edition. I'm cool with whatever that may be.

One suggestion, however. The wording on page 575 line 23, "unusual circumstance" reminds me of the extensive discussion here about what constituted an "emergency," wording which was dropped in the 12th edition. Perhaps "unusual circumstance" will also bite the dust in the 13th edition. 

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

After all, which is worse, a cancelled meeting with members showing up, some absent believing the meeting is really cancelled, or a real meeting without a subject to discuss?

That depends.  How many show up?  I would be concerned if a good number didn't show up believing the meeting is cancelled, and a quorum shows up and spends the organization's funds.

[Weldon Merritt]

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

If the Board has the authority to re-schedule a meeting as suggested in RONR/12 page 575 line 23, I would suspect that many readers may surmise that that would also include the authority to cancel a meeting.

You omitted a critical part of that provision: "If the words "unless otherwise ordered by the Society [or "Executive Board"]" are added [to the byalws section on meetings]...." The counter to your argument is that if the bylaws must allow for rescheduling a meeting, they also must allow for cancelling a meetng. Otherwsie, it can't be done.

[Guest Zev]

3 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

You omitted a critical part of that provision: "If the words "unless otherwise ordered by the Society [or "Executive Board"]" are added [to the byalws section on meetings]...." 

I omitted nothing. Perhaps you are making reference to some other posting.

3 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

The counter to your argument is that if the bylaws must allow for rescheduling a meeting, they also must allow for cancelling a meetng. Otherwsie, it can't be done.

This is absurd. RONR says nothing of the sort.

[Gary Novosielski]

Apparently we have a time traveller who is quoting from the 12^th edition.

[George Mervosh]

4 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Apparently we have a time traveller who is quoting from the 12^th edition.

The regular or deluxe edition, I wonder? 

[Guest Zev]

OK. OK. OK. You bunch of wise guys. So I typed a "1" "2" instead of a "1" "1". Of course you noticed that the posting I answered also misspelled words but you did not jump on his back. And neither did I for that reason.

[Richard Brown]

5 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

OK. OK. OK. You bunch of wise guys. So I typed a "1" "2" instead of a "1" "1". Of course you noticed that the posting I answered also misspelled words but you did not jump on his back. And neither did I for that reason.

Well, you also made a reference to the 13th edition. . . . 

[George Mervosh]

24 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Well, you also made a reference to the 13th edition. . . . 

By the time that comes out I'm not even going to care if it bites the dust in that edition. 

[Weldon Merritt]

13 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

16 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

You omitted a critical part of that provision: "If the words "unless otherwise ordered by the Society [or "Executive Board"]" are added [to the byalws section on meetings]...." 

I omitted nothing. Perhaps you are making reference to some other posting.

No, I was referring to you post, in which you said, "If the Board has the authority to re-schedule a meeting as suggested in RONR/12 page 575 line 23, I would suspect that many readers may surmise that that would also include the authority to cancel a meeting." You seem to suggest that RONR itself gives the board the authority to reschedule a meeting. It does not. It says the board (or the society) can reschedule a meeting if the bylaws allow it. P. 575, ll. 21-25 (emphasis added).

13 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

16 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

The counter to your argument is that if the bylaws must allow for rescheduling a meeting, they also must allow for cancelling a meetng. Otherwsie, it can't be done.

This is absurd. RONR says nothing of the sort

You are correct that RONR does not specifically say that the board cannot cancel a meeting without bylaws authorization, but it certainly dos not say that the board can do so. My point is that it would be absurd to require bylaws authorization to reschedule a meeting, but not to cancel one. Further, RONR says, “A society has no executive board, nor can its officers act as a board, except as the bylaws may provide; and when so established, the board has only such power as is delegated to it by the bylaws or by vote of the society's assembly referring individual matters to it.” P. 482, ll. 25-29.

[Richard Brown]

I concur with the remarks immediately above by Weldon Merritt and also with his remarks in his first post. 

Edited December 22, 2017 at 11:15 PM by Richard Brown

[Guest Nancy N.]

Ms. Bailey, c'mon, work with us here (cf. Mervosh, Thursday, 3:34 PM, and Brown, Thursday, 3:53 PM).  Otherwise, with nothing substantive to chew on, we might fall to chewing on ourselves.

On 12/21/2017 at 11:17 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

You omitted a critical part of that provision: [...]

In all fairness, Mr. Merritt, no, Guest Zev did not omit it:  he said [ibid supra; quondam pluribus unum, 9:11 PM]: 

 

On 12/21/2017 at 9:11 PM, Guest Zev said:

If the Board has the authority to re-schedule a meeting as suggested in RONR/12 page 575 line 23 [....]

I myslef would, rather, have emphasized lines 21-22, but we've already had enough fractiousness here.

I however would like to point out that, while we, here on The World's Premiere Internet Parliamentary Forum, have often discussed RONR's failure to -- um, omitting mention of cancelling meetings, from which (among other things) we have inferred that cancelling meetings cannot be done, we have not, to the best of my knowledge (which I allow is incomplete, since there are days and even weeks when I cannot read all the discussion threads), considered the question of cancelling meetings in the context of the board's, or specified officers's

(or some number ('s?)

of members ('s?),

&c &c) being authorized by the bylaws to reschedule meetings.

I'm toying with the idea that cancellation is simply the most extreme case of rescheduling.

(Porlock is at the door.  Maybe more later.  Please continue in my absence. )

[Guest Nancy N.]

(Wups.  Sorry, I hadn't finished fixing the grammar.)

[Weldon Merritt]

32 minutes ago, Guest Nancy N. said:

In all fairness, Mr. Merritt, no, Guest Zev did not omit it:  he said [ibid supra; quondam pluribus unum, 9:11 PM]: 

It seems to me that if someone claims that RONR allows someting, but fails to include a critical qualification to the actual RONR language, they have omitted it.

34 minutes ago, Guest Nancy N. said:

I'm toying with the idea that cancellation is simply the most extreme case of rescheduling.

I'm not sure I would agree, but even if so, RONR is clear that the authority to do so must be provided in the bylaws. or it can't be done.

[Guest Zev]

Would you go so far as to say that absent a bylaw provision allowing for the cancelation of meetings that there is no conceivable situation under the sun that a scheduled meeting could be cancelled?

(Thank you Nancy N. for your kind words.)

[Weldon Merritt]

8 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Would you go so far as to say that absent a bylaw provision allowing for the cancelation of meetings that there is no conceivable situation under the sun that a scheduled meeting could be cancelled?

"[No conceivable situation under the sun" is prettty broad, and certainly is not what you were describing in your original post. But yes, I would say that there is no legitimate way for the meeting to be officially canceled.  If someone tries to cacel it, and a quorum nevertheless shows up, they can proceed to conduct busiess. Or, if any members at all show up, even if fewer that a quorum, they still can meet and take any of the four actions allowed in the absence of a quorum. (See RONR, p. 347, ll. 30-32.) Of course, if no one shows up, I would agree that it "is not the end of the world." It does sometimes happen in the real world,  but that doesn't make it proper.

Now if the building where the meeting normally is held burns down, or the location otherwise becomes unavailable, that would create a practical necessaity to do something. But I would argue that rather than cancelling the meeting, the best course of action would be to find an alternate location, notify the members as expeditiously as possible, and (if feasible) post a notice at the old location directing members to the alternate location. And I also would advise recessing the meeting long enough to allow anyone who initially goes to the old location to make it to the alternate one before substantive business is conducted.

The bottom line is that there usually is a legitinate way to do what needs to be done.

[Guest Zev]

8 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

I would say that there is no legitimate way

 

8 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

The bottom line is that there usually is a legitinate way

I give up.

[jstackpo]

You give up too easy.  Weldon's first quoted sentence had more than you copied - go read the whole sentence.  He is not inconsistent at all.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/24/2017 at 4:10 AM, Guest Zev said:

Would you go so far as to say that absent a bylaw provision allowing for the cancelation of meetings that there is no conceivable situation under the sun that a scheduled meeting could be cancelled?

(Thank you Nancy N. for your kind words.)

I certainly would not.   If there is another meeting of the body intervening before the meeting to be canceled, they can cancel it simply enough by adopting a motion to Rescind the action that scheduled it, or to Amend the time, date, or place.

Scheduling and rescheduling meetings does not need explicit authorization in the bylaws any more than the bylaws must pre--authorize painting the clubhouse red.  The problem comes when individuals try to take on this authority, and that would require granting of powers in the bylaws.

[Josh Martin]

36 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I certainly would not.   If there is another meeting of the body intervening before the meeting to be canceled, they can cancel it simply enough by adopting a motion to Rescind the action that scheduled it, or to Amend the time, date, or place.

I agree - assuming, of course, that the assembly’s meetings are scheduled by resolution, rather than in the bylaws.