Canceling meetings

[Tom Morelock]

I have read on here that once a meeting date/time has been set that it can't be canceled. can you point me to where that is located in the book?

[Edgar Guest]

There is no provision in RONR for canceling a properly called (or regular) meeting.

 

So you're looking for something that's not there.

 

To put it another way, if someone is saying that a meeting can be canceled, the burden of proof is on that person to show that such a rule exists, not on you to show that it doesn't.

 

If I claim that the moon is made of cheese, you don't have to prove that it's not.

[Shmuel Gerber]

There is no provision in RONR for canceling a properly called (or regular) meeting.

 

So you're looking for something that's not there.

 

To put it another way, if someone is saying that a meeting can be canceled, the burden of proof is on that person to show that such a rule exists, not on you to show that it doesn't.

 

If I claim that the moon is made of cheese, you don't have to prove that it's not.

 

I don't mean to get into a picayune philosophical discussion (although actually that's exactly what I'm doing), but if you claim that the moon is made of cheese and I claim that the moon is not made of cheese, then the only reason my claim is better is that it is more plausible from a common-sense point of view (where would all that cheese have come from?). But logically, we both have equal "burdens of proof." In the absence of additional evidence, the most I can say with certainty is that you haven't given any valid reason to believe that it is made of cheese. But I haven't proved that it isn't made of cheese any more than you have proved that it is.

[Dan Honemann]

Coming back down from the moon, suppose the President of the Society whose Bylaws are on pages 583-88 decided to call for a special meeting of the Board, to be held on August 15, to consider proposition X. Notice was duly given to all members of the Board five days ago. The President now decides he wants to cancel the meeting, and asks the Secretary to send out notice this coming Wednesday of the cancellation. The Secretary does so. Will the meeting have been cancelled? Is it of any significance that, if three board members want such a meeting to be held, ample time remains for them to call for such a meeting? 

[Shmuel Gerber]

Coming back down from the moon, suppose the President of the Society whose Bylaws are on pages 583-88 decided to call for a special meeting of the Board, to be held on August 15, to consider proposition X. Notice was duly given to all members of the Board five days ago. The President now decides he wants to cancel the meeting, and asks the Secretary to send out notice this coming Wednesday of the cancellation. The Secretary does so. Will the meeting have been cancelled? Is it of any significance that, if three board members want such a meeting to be held, ample time remains for them to call for such a meeting? 

 

No, I don't think the President has the power to cancel a special meeting, even one that he has called on his own authority, since there is no provision (either explicit or implicit) in the bylaws or in RONR giving the President authority to do so.

 

I agree with the general premise that if an officer claims to have the authority to do something, there needs to be a provision that can be pointed to that grants such authority before he can exercise that claim. I was just quibbling with the moon-is-made-of-cheese analogy, since a statement about the natural world can be true even if there is no proof of it, whereas the rule for the power of officers is: "An office carries with it only the rights necessary for executing the duties of the office" (RONR, p. 448).

 

I would say that the power of three board members to still call a meeting is not of significance as far as the validity of the President's cancellation, but from a practical point of view, since a notice purporting to cancel the meeting has been issued by the Secretary (or it will be on Wednesday if we don't stop the rogues), it would be wise for the other board members to do something to clarify the situation -- either request the special meeting, protest the president's cancellation, or try to get a majority of the board members to acknowledge that the meeting won't take place.

[Edgar Guest]

. . . if you [or I] claim that the moon is made of cheese and I [or you] claim that the moon is not made of cheese, then the only reason my [or your]  claim is better is that it is more plausible from a common-sense point of view (where would all that cheese have come from?). But logically, we both have equal "burdens of proof."

 

But I'm not claiming that the moon is not made of cheese. Let's assume I have absolutely no idea what the moon is made of (which is pretty much true). So the only claim that's been made is the one that says that the moon is made of cheese.

[Shmuel Gerber]

But I'm not claiming that the moon is not made of cheese. Let's assume I have absolutely no idea what the moon is made of (which is pretty much true). So the only claim that's been made is the one that says that the moon is made of cheese.

 

And that analogy does not help explain the parliamentary situation. If I (purport to) cancel a meeting because I believe that meetings can be canceled (and that I have the authority to cancel them), and you say the meeting is still on, you are now staking a claim that the meeting can't be canceled (or that I don't have the authority to cancel them). So the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim just as much as it is on me to prove my claim, unless you make use of the general principle that to validly do things requires one to have the authority and power to do them.

[Edited again to add: Of course, in other situations, the applicable general principle might be that things are permitted unless they are prohibited. But once again, the composition of the moon will have nothing to with it. ]

[Dan Honemann]

And that analogy does not help explain the parliamentary situation. If I (purport to) cancel a meeting because I believe that meetings can be canceled (and that I have the authority to cancel them), and you say the meeting is still on, you are now staking a claim that the meeting can't be canceled (or that I don't have the authority to cancel them). So the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim just as much as it is on me to prove my claim, unless you make use of the general principle that to validly do things requires one to have the authority and power to do them.

[Edited again to add: Of course, in other situations, the applicable general principle might be that things are permitted unless they are prohibited. But once again, the composition of the moon will have nothing to with it. ]

 

To say that one cannot validly do something because he does not have the authority and power to do it seems to me to be a classic case of begging the question. 

[jstackpo]

There is no question that the meeting CAN and HAS been canceled by the president (even though it might be thought to be a cheesy thing for him/her to do).  It is exactly analogous to the situation described on p. 297, lines 20-23, since there is ample time, as Dan posits, for those three board members to get up a written request for a special meeting after all.

[Shmuel Gerber]

To say that one cannot validly do something because he does not have the authority and power to do it seems to me to be an classic case of begging the question. 

 

Yes, good point. I was referring, a bit sloppily, to the general principle which I mentioned in post #5, that to validly do things requires one to have been granted the authority and power to do them.

[Dan Honemann]

Yes, good point. I was referring, a bit sloppily, to the general principle which I mentioned in post #5, that to validly do things requires one to have been granted the authority and power to do them.

 

Yes. I understand and generally agree, but I also think that a strong argument can be made for the assumption that the power to do something carries with it the power to undo it, provided that no one else's rights will be adversely affected.

[Dan Honemann]

So I'm hoping that the next edition of RONR will include something making it clear that once a meeting has been properly called, it can't be cancelled. 

[Richard Brown]

So I'm hoping that the next edition of RONR will include something making it clear that once a meeting has been properly called, it can't be cancelled. 

Or, that it can be canceled, as Mr. Honemann hinted at in post No 11, as long as no one's  rights are being violated.  I think a strong argument can be made that the power to call a special meeting carries with it the power to cancel the meeting, at least within limits.  Right now RONR is silent on that point.  Edited to add: I do agree that most (maybe all) of us who regularly post on this forum have for years taken the position that a special meeting, once called, cannot be canceled (except perhaps by the assembly itself or if the power to do so is granted in the bylaws).  However, clear authority for that position is lacking in RONR.

 

Yes. I understand and generally agree, but I also think that a strong argument can be made for the assumption that the power to do something carries with it the power to undo it, provided that no one else's rights will be adversely affected.

[Dan Honemann]

So I'm hoping that the next edition of RONR will include something making it clear that once a meeting has been properly called, it can't be cancelled. 

 

 

Or, that it can be canceled, as Mr. Honemann hinted at in post No 11, as long as no one's  rights are being violated.  

 

Well, no, I think that a rule authorizing cancellation is apt to lead to more and greater problems.

 

As best I can determine, there is no clear-cut rule in RONR concerning this question at the present time, and I do think, as I indicated in post #11, that a strong argument can be made for saying that the power to call a meeting carries with it the power to cancel it provided that no member's rights will be adversely affected thereby. I think this is unfortunate, however, since a determination as to whether anyone's rights will be (or have been) adversely affected will often be one that is difficult to make, and if the assembly is ultimately called upon to make such a determination it will be able to do so only at a regular or properly called meeting.

 

It will be far better, in my view, to have a nice, clear-cut rule that cancellations aren't allowed.

[Timothy]

I know of organizations that operate under the assumption that the authority to call a special meeting carries with it the authority to "uncall" a special meeting. That makes logical sense to me, because the person who calls a meeting may become aware of something that causes the special meeting to be unneeded. There is no reason for people to attend a meeting if there is nothing for them to do at the meeting. But I've also seen organizations where they assumed that the authority to call a special meeting gave that person the authority to cancel or reschedule a regular meeting. While I believe there are cases where it may be advisable for someone to be able to reschedule a regular meeting, the conditions under which they may do so should be clearly specified in the bylaws.  

[Edgar Guest]

That makes logical sense to me, because the person who calls a meeting may become aware of something that causes the special meeting to be unneeded. There is no reason for people to attend a meeting if there is nothing for them to do at the meeting. 

 

That logic seems to give undue authority to the person who called the meeting.

 

Suppose I receive notice that a special meeting of the L.M. Society, dealing with an issue that's near and dear to my heart, will be held on Sunday, July 19, 20__ . I cancel an important engagement to free up that date on my calendar. Must I then wait by the mailbox (or phone or computer) on the off chance that the meeting might be canceled? And would the same notice required for calling the meeting be required for canceling the meeting? Or could a meeting that required a seven-day notice be canceled with only 24 hours notice?

[Timothy]

That logic seems to give undue authority to the person who called the meeting.

 

Suppose I receive notice that a special meeting of the L.M. Society, dealing with an issue that's near and dear to my heart, will be held on Sunday, July 19, 20__ . I cancel an important engagement to free up that date on my calendar. Must I then wait by the mailbox (or phone or computer) on the off chance that the meeting might be canceled? And would the same notice required for calling the meeting be required for canceling the meeting? Or could a meeting that required a seven-day notice be canceled with only 24 hours notice?

 

Does it matter how near and dear to your heart an issue is if the reason for the meeting goes away? Suppose a storm damages a club's building. The board is authorized to spend up to $5,000 on building repairs without approval from the club. The a repair estimate comes in at $5,500, so they call a meeting of the club to authorize the additional expenditure. Before the meeting, the contractor decides he can do it for less and submits an amended bid for $4,995. The board, accepts the bid and the contractor repairs the building. What "undue authority" is the board exercising if they send a notice to the club members that the called meeting is no longer necessary?

[smb]

I would like to take us back to the pure essence of the original question -- is there anything in RONR that prohibits you from canceling a meeting? No.  

 

And now for my 2c: If there were such a rule, Mr. Spock would consider it illogical.  Of course meetings can be canceled.  That is why every calendar program and application from Profs to Outlook to Mac Calendar ad infinitum has a function that allows you to cancel a meeting.  The only question is who has the authority to do so if the bylaws, standing rules, or parliamentary authority don't address the issue and under what circumstances. (Ok, that's really two questions.) If an assembly previously scheduled a special meeting, it can rescind that action.  If the president cancels tomorrow's regular meeting because the meeting room burned down last night, and there is a question about whether he exceeded his/her authority, the assembly can ratify that action later.  If a standing rule requires any proposed business to be submitted x days prior to the meeting so it can be noticed in the call to meeting, the President routinely cancels the meeting if nothing has been submitted, and no one has ever objected, then you may have established a custom and practice.  Note that my comments do not address what is necessary, or what might happen, if the meeting is canceled over the objections of other members who think it should still proceed.  That is a different question.  

 

As to the moon: semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit (the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.)

 

 “usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.” (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) Michalos, Alex (1969). Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p. 370.

[Edgar Guest]

What "undue authority" is the board exercising if they send a notice to the club members that the called meeting is no longer necessary?

 

I have no problem with the board suggesting that there's no need for the members to show up.

 

I have a problem with the board canceling the meeting.

[Sean Hunt]

I actually agree with smb here. The silence on RONR should be taken as that---silence---and not an actual statement that you cannot cancel of a meeting. A custom could establish the authority of the President or Board to cancel a meeting.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I actually agree with smb here.

 

You're probably thinking, "With so much Latin, how could his reply be wrong?"

[Sean Hunt]

You're probably thinking, "With so much Latin, how could his reply be wrong?"

 

Or I could just be thinking that I don't see how you can read "meetings cannot be canceled" into the book.

[Timothy]

I have no problem with the board suggesting that there's no need for the members to show up.

 

I have a problem with the board canceling the meeting.

 

I still don't see how this is "undue authority" if it isn't undue authority for the board to call a meeting.

[Guest Zev]

If meeting has been scheduled and the meeting has subsequently been cancelled, it appears that the individuals inconvenienced are those that set aside other activities in order to attend a meeting that now no longer takes place.

 

If a meeting has been scheduled, but it is not cancelled, it appears that the individuals inconvenienced are the entire assembly since the presiding officer informs them that given the new set of circumstances no decisions need to be made and the meeting might as well adjourn.

 

As a member of this organization I may feel inconvenienced depending on what I gave up in order to attend this meeting whether it was cancelled or whether it took place. What I think should happen as a consequence of any of these two possibilities has everything to do with my opinions concerning the relative importance of the subject matter, whether some action needs to be taken or not, and the internal politics of the organization as a whole.

 

Since there is no way to quantify any of this, I think it better to simply stay out of this question and let each organization decide for itself whether the cancellation was warranted or not. If the majority think the cancellation was the best thing then they will do nothing. If the majority think otherwise then they may start disciplinary proceedings against those that cancelled the meeting.

 

And that is the way I think things should be.

[Josh Martin]

To all those who say that meetings can be cancelled, what happens if some members decide to meet anyway, and a quorum is present at the cancelled meeting? Is this meeting valid? Does notice need to be given that the meeting shall still be held? How much notice? Who gives it? How shall the notice be given?

As for canceling the meeting in the first place, who can make this decision? Does notice need to be given that the meeting is cancelled? How much notice? Who gives it? How shall the notice be given?

It seems to me that the decided advantage in a firm rule that meetings cannot be cancelled is that there are fewer questions to be answered. If an assembly wishes to adopt its own rules for canceling meetings, which will answer these questions, that's fine. Without any guidance for these questions in RONR, however, I don't know what the answers should be in a society without such rules.