Sp called meeting

[Guest Peg]

When a County legislative body votes & approves for a special called meeting with the purpose being "to discuss all matters surrounding" a specific Board, can the legislative body make motions or just discuss issues concerning the Board targeted by the special called meeting purpose?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

When a County legislative body votes & approves for a special called meeting with the purpose being "to discuss all matters surrounding" a specific Board, can the legislative body make motions or just discuss issues concerning the Board targeted by the special called meeting purpose?

Impossible, under RONR.

To hold a special meeting, the specific items of business (at least their scope and their purport) must be expressly stated in the written/mailed call-to-meeting.

Any special meeting call which just said something akin to "all matters" is improper, which makes the special meeting's business improper.

* * *

And, to answer the second implied question:

No notice may limit business to "discussion only."

That would be imposing a special rule of order, unilaterally, outside of a meeting, without a quorum, without a vote.

No secretary, no president, gets to issue "discussion only" rules. (Limiting debate is not possible to impose, unilaterally.)

So there is no such thing as a "discussion only" topic, under RONR.

If an item of business it is properly listed (i.e., properly noticed), then it is fair game to be adopted or rejected.

[Larry Cisar]

Impossible, under RONR.

To hold a special meeting, the specific items of business (at least their scope and their purport) must be expressly stated in the written/mailed call-to-meeting.

Any special meeting call which just said something akin to "all matters" is improper, which makes the special meeting's business improper.

* * *

And, to answer the second implied question:

No notice may limit business to "discussion only."

That would be imposing a special rule of order, unilaterally, outside of a meeting, without a quorum, without a vote.

No secretary, no president, gets to issue "discussion only" rules. (Limiting debate is not possible to impose, unilaterally.)

So there is no such thing as a "discussion only" topic, under RONR.

If an item of business it is properly listed (i.e., properly noticed), then it is fair game to be adopted or rejected.

Sorry but I think page 90 says otherwise. Business is limited to what the Call says business is limited to.

[Trina]

When a County legislative body votes & approves for a special called meeting with the purpose being "to discuss all matters surrounding" a specific Board, can the legislative body make motions or just discuss issues concerning the Board targeted by the special called meeting purpose?

'The reason for special meetings is to deal with important matters that may arise between regular meetings, and that urgently require action by the society before the next regular meeting.' (RONR p. 89 ll. 17-20)

Discussion is NOT action, in the RONR sense, so the call to meeting you quote is somewhat misguided. Perhaps the body should have called for a hearing or a discussion group.

However, if this is the recorded purpose of the special meeting (i.e. the motion to call the meeting specifically used the 'discuss' language), and if that is what is says in the call that went out, my inclination is that it wouldn't be proper to make and vote on motions, since some/many of the members receiving the call might reasonably assume that discussion means discussion, period. Others may assume that since a 'meeting' is a machine which can take action, action WILL be possible. The point is that there could be a violation of the rights of absentees, since some members might choose not to attend when they see that the purpose of the meeting is 'to discuss'.

If RONR is strictly followed, discussion isn't really possible unless a motion has been made, so that poses a bit of a problem. The assembly could perhaps work as a committee of the whole, or quasi committee of the whole (described RONR pp. 512-525), which allows for a lot of debate, without a binding vote at the end -- the outcome of votes taken in the committee serve as recommendations to the assembly.

Also, since you say this is a legislative body, it is quite possible that other rules/statutes apply to its activities, and those rules would supersede the rules in RONR.

[Tim Wynn]

Sorry but I think page 90 says otherwise. Business is limited to what the Call says business is limited to.

I'm going to have to go with Mr. Goldsworthy on this one.

Say the president is authorized to call special meetings. He can't call a special meeting where "only the president gets to vote," or where "only those who favor [a certain position] get to vote," or "only those opposed to raising membership dues can speak in debate."

Also, as Trina points out, the purpose of a meeting is to transact business. Say no quorum shows up; is anything really any different (a quorum being the minimum number of members required to be present for business to be transacted)? If the edict set by the call of the meeting stands, nothing's going to happen that would require a meeting. Furthermore, I call a meeting at my house "to watch some TV". No one else is invited.

[George Mervosh]

Kim, where does it say "scope and purport" on pages 89-90, or are you confusing previous notice with the call to a special meeting again?

Oh, and I agree with Dr. Cisar, as usual.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Kim, where does it say "scope and purport" on pages 89-90, or are you confusing previous notice with the call to a special meeting again?

Oops!

Yes, my mistake.

[Josh Martin]

However, if this is the recorded purpose of the special meeting (i.e. the motion to call the meeting specifically used the 'discuss' language), and if that is what is says in the call that went out, my inclination is that it wouldn't be proper to make and vote on motions, since some/many of the members receiving the call might reasonably assume that discussion means discussion, period.

I disagree. While the call of a special meeting may limit what business may be transacted, the call has no bearing on how that business may be transacted. The call may not place a rule of order of "discussion only" on the special meeting. It is unfortunate that the call is poorly worded, but in my opinion, any business surrounding the board mentioned in the call may be fully conducted at the meeting.

[Trina]

...

And, to answer the second implied question:

No notice may limit business to "discussion only."

That would be imposing a special rule of order, unilaterally, outside of a meeting, without a quorum, without a vote.

No secretary, no president, gets to issue "discussion only" rules. (Limiting debate is not possible to impose, unilaterally.)

...

I would point out that this is not what happened in the situation described by Peg -- this particular call to meeting was voted and approved by the body (presumably at a meeting):

When a County legislative body votes & approves for a special called meeting with the purpose being "to discuss all matters surrounding" a specific Board, can the legislative body make motions or just discuss issues concerning the Board targeted by the special called meeting purpose?

However, from what several responders on this thread have said, it's simply improper to try to impose a 'discussion only' rule on a future meeting (even in the situation where the wording of the call to meeting has itself been voted on during a meeting). Is that a fair summary?

I disagree. While the call of a special meeting may limit what business may be transacted, the call has no bearing on how that business may be transacted. The call may not place a rule of order of "discussion only" on the special meeting. It is unfortunate that the call is poorly worded, but in my opinion, any business surrounding the board mentioned in the call may be fully conducted at the meeting.

I think I understand the point you are making. A meeting is a meeting, and, once unleashed (so to speak), its freedom of action in dealing with the business it was called to deal with cannot be restricted a priori. However, that leaves me curious whether any defect in the wording of the notice could ever lead to a violation of the rights of absentees. I'll start a new topic, though, so as not to clutter up the original poster's thread.

[Josh Martin]

However, from what several responders on this thread have said, it's simply improper to try to impose a 'discussion only' rule on a future meeting (even in the situation where the wording of the call to meeting has itself been voted on during a meeting). Is that a fair summary?

Yes. Nothing in RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 89-90 suggests to me that the call may affect how the business in the call may be transacted. Additionally, if the wording is voted on during a meeting, then an attempt to impose such a rule on a future special meeting is out of order as it interferes with the freedom of each session. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 85, lines 14-29)