I recently attended a meeting of a public body that is bound by an Open Meetings law. Due to lack of a quorum the meeting was rescheduled for 24 hours later by a city official. An issue arose where an attendee and non-member of the body spoke up and announced that the second meeting was in violation of the Open Meetings law because the agenda wasn't posted a full 24 hours in advance (this is true it was posted with slight modifications fewer than 24h in advance).
So here's the question: The meeting is called to order on the second day, there is a quorum present and the non-member insists on being heard to say, "Point of order, Mr. Chairman. This meeting cannot proceed because it is in violation of [the law]. The agenda was not posted long enough in advance."
Setting aside the relatively trivial nature of the violation, how should the chair have responded?
My thinking:
The Chair say, "Mr. Non-member, you are not a member of the body and the floor is not open to public comment. You point of order is not well taken."
Or
In deference to the fact that a law is potentially being broken and the stature of the person making the ruckus the chair could say something like, "Sir, you are out of order and the floor is not open to public comment. In deference to your being a community member, the chair will hear your concern if you can be brief." {{Concern is stated}} "Sir, your point is not well taken, but given the fact that the nature of your complaint involves this body potentially violating a law, I will entertain a motion from this body to adjourn the meeting. Do I hear such a motion?"
Thoughts, better ways to handle this?