The meeting began.....

[David A Foulkes]

In a previous thread, the question arose and various answers were given through the replies of when a meeting "begins." Some replies suggested the beginning was when business was addressed, perhaps at the reading of the last meeting's minutes for example. This would not apply in a special meeting of course, unless it had been called (at least, if not among other reasons) to approve previous minutes. It might be fair to say that the consensus (though not unanimously) took the position that merely calling the meeting to order was not quite enough.

So, to satisfy the requirement to hold a meeting (as dictated by bylaws or given notice, let's say) if an inquorate meeting is called to order and immediately adjourned by the chair, has there been a meeting? And if so, when did it begin? And if not, then how could it be said that the need to hold the meeting (again, due to bylaw dictates or notice given) was satisfied?

[Rob Elsman]

In a previous thread, the question arose and various answers were given through the replies of when a meeting "begins." Some replies suggested the beginning was when business was addressed, perhaps at the reading of the last meeting's minutes for example. This would not apply in a special meeting of course, unless it had been called (at least, if not among other reasons) to approve previous minutes. It might be fair to say that the consensus (though not unanimously) took the position that merely calling the meeting to order was not quite enough.

So, to satisfy the requirement to hold a meeting (as dictated by bylaws or given notice, let's say) if an inquorate meeting is called to order and immediately adjourned by the chair, has there been a meeting? And if so, when did it begin? And if not, then how could it be said that the need to hold the meeting (again, due to bylaw dictates or notice given) was satisfied?

A meeting opens when the presiding officer calls the meeting to order, RONR (10th ed.), p. 24, l. 12-14; p. 336, ll. 27-32.

[hmtcastle]

It might be fair to say that the consensus (though not unanimously) took the position that merely calling the meeting to order was not quite enough.

I find it hard to believe that that's the consensus (though I seem to recall some ramblings about the beginning of the middle being the end of the beginning). As Mr. Elsman notes, the meeting begins when it is properly called to order. As it famously was on Thursday, January 4, 20__, at 8:30 P.M.

[Dan Honemann]

I find it hard to believe that that's the consensus (though I seem to recall some ramblings about the beginning of the middle being the end of the beginning). As Mr. Elsman notes, the meeting begins when it is properly called to order. As it famously was on Thursday, January 4, 20__, at 8:30 P.M.

One hopes that that wasn't the "consensus", but ought not be particularly surprised if it was. Fortunately, the correctness of responses posted in this forum is not something that is decided by majority vote.

For example, I remember when, years ago, the (rather vehement) "consensus" here in this forum was that, even if a society's assembly has rejected a motion to do something, its subordinate board could properly go ahead and do it anyway.

[Dan Honemann]

I'm reminded of the very, very old minute book which I once had in which the minutes of most meetings began with:

"The meeting began with a song and a prayer, the Reverend Jackson in the chair."

Unfortunately, they just don't write 'em that way anymore.

[hmtcastle]

"The meeting began with a song and a prayer, the Reverend Jackson in the chair."

Clement Clarke Moore meets Margaret Duffy?

[Josh Martin]

It might be fair to say that the consensus (though not unanimously) took the position that merely calling the meeting to order was not quite enough.

So, to satisfy the requirement to hold a meeting (as dictated by bylaws or given notice, let's say) if an inquorate meeting is called to order and immediately adjourned by the chair, has there been a meeting? And if so, when did it begin? And if not, then how could it be said that the need to hold the meeting (again, due to bylaw dictates or notice given) was satisfied?

I did suggest in the other thread that, for the purposes of interpreting the rule at question, the "beginning" of the meeting could be interpreted to continue up to the first item of business (and I believe I was in the minority on that point), but I think it's quite a leap to go from that to saying that a meeting which was called to order never began.

[Gary c Tesser]

ON the one hand. After a few years of World War II, Winston Churchill said, "_It's not the beginning of the end, but maybe it's the end of the beginning._"

But does anyone sanely think that the war had not just-plain-begun months/years earlier, the moment that the Germans poured over the Polish border in 1939?

Let's say the chairman says, "The meeting is called to order." He's about to say, "the secretary shall read the minutes," but aspirates a bit of donut or crocodile steak* or whatever he's nibbling on, and has a coughing fit upon finishing the word "order." Foulkes or Mervosh leans over to whisper to me, of course spilling his beer on my lap because that's what he does best, and over, or under, the sound of the paroxysming chair, asks, "So has the meeting begun yet or what?"

I put p. 248, line 29, to you all, and let's please put paid to this drivel.

(Still unemployed, maybe grouchy. Chris H take note.)

_________

* Turnabout, y'know.

[Shmuel Gerber]

ON the one hand. After a few years of World War II, Winston Churchill said, "_It's not the beginning of the end, but maybe it's the end of the beginning._"

The exact quote (which doesn't really make more sense than your paraphrase, or anything else in this thread) is "This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

There are so many quotations available from Churchill, couldn't you have quoted something a bit more sensible, such as, "I decline utterly to be impartial as between the fire brigade and the fire." (same reference to p. 248, line 29 applies)

[hmtcastle]

There are so many quotations available from Churchill, couldn't you have quoted something a bit more sensible

Seventy years ago last Friday, Churchill said, "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few". Not many people know he was referring to the RONR Discussion Forum.

[Rob Elsman]

Seventy years ago last Friday, Churchill said, "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few". Not many people know he was referring to the RONR Discussion Forum.

Nor would he have guessed that his cousin makes replies there.

[Gary c Tesser]

Nor would he have guessed that his cousin makes replies there.

What's this?