Big George

A Special Meeting of our organization was properly called two weeks ago. Late last night the owner of the venue stated in the notice said that due to an emergency, the room would not be available. An alternative has been found. Our plan is to have a few members go to the original location, call the meeting to order, make and approve a motion to recess to the new location 30 minutes later. A question has been raised as to whether a quorum must be present at the original location to pass the motion to recess. My guess is that this would only be necessary if someone made a point of order regarding the lack of a quorum. Thanks in advance for the help.

I am resurrecting this thread because we are having a Special Meeting and it is likely that this issue will once again be raised. When you say a member could put the question from the floor, are you saying that a member could put the question of "whether or not the chair's ruling that an appeal of the chair's ruling is out of order because there cannot possibly be two opinions" to a vote by the body? That makes sense because RONR 39 begins by stating that "39:1 A motion is dilatory if it seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly as clearly indicated by the existing parliamentary situation." In our case it is the chair who is being dilatory in seeking to thwart the will of the assembly, not those raising the appeal. 62:6 seems to require that any appeal that is seconded must be placed before the body. This is where things go off track in our meetings, as the chair insists the appeal is out of order because there cannot possibly be two opinions, even when a majority of the body disagrees with him. We would need to be prepared to move on to 62:9 and put it directly to a vote by the assembly. We are unlikely to be able to remove the chair, as they are not pro tem. And while those who do not support the chair constitute a majority, they are unlikely to constitute the 2/3rds necessary to suspend the rules and remove the chair. I know it is a mess and RONR were designed to help people who want to work together do so efficiently and effectively. I appreciate everyone's thoughtful suggestions.

Thank you all for your comments. Sometime I feel like the only sane person left in our organization. Rather seeing what the rules say and then following them, it seems like everyone wants to twist the rules and do whatever they feel like.

Can including the item “New Business” in the call be used to open up a Special Meeting to matters not otherwise referenced in the call? There are some in our organization who think this is a clever way to get around the restriction. It seems to me like it eviscerates the protection which I understand is intended to help members decide whether they need to rearrange their schedules to attend the special meeting. But I couldn’t find anything in the rules that prohibits it.

Special meetings also may be called by written petition signed by twenty percent (20%) of the total membership (not including vacancies) of the Executive Committee delivered to the Chairman, the Steering Committee, or to the Secretary at least fourteen (14) days before the desired meeting date

Yes.

Our bylaws provide that any member may call a special meeting by presenting a petition signed by 20% of the members to one of various officers. Last year, a petition was delivered to our chairman that was signed by 19 out of 98 members. The chairman mistakenly stated that the 20% threshold had been met (this is irrelevant under our rules - there is no confirmation of a meeting called in this manner - it is simply called by the delivery of the petition.) The meeting was none-the-less held (or some members got together - whether or not it was a meeting is another matter). It was not well attended, but the 25% quorum requirement was met and those present believe they were able to conduct business. Most members believed that the meeting was not valid called and did not attend that meeting. Recently, in an attempt to justify the meeting, the member who initially requested it stated that he simply made a mistake and left other members off of the petition who had provided their approval (this is often done with an email from a member supporting the meeting call in lieu of a physical signature on a petition). He says that he talked to the chairman before the meeting, who said that he could add the signatures he left off the petition and that this would constitute correcting a non substantive clerical error. This does not appear in the meeting minutes and was, until now, months later, not communicated to the membership. While the whole thing seems a little fishy to me, I search RONR for referencing to correcting clerical errors. The only references I found were to correcting meeting minutes or document formatting, and in those cases the members, not the chairman, approved the corrections. Not surprisingly, this has created great confusion. I realize RONR cannot possibly anticipate everything that clever people might do. To me, it is pretty straightforward: either the petition for the meeting was signed by 20% of the members or it wasn’t. Adding additional members to the petition after it was delivered is not possible, especially in this case where adding them would be very substantive - changing an improperly called meeting to one that may have been properly called. I appreciate any insights any of you can add.

We have had several occasions where after a meeting notice was properly issued, changes were made to various aspects of the meeting’s logistics, changes such as the location, the time of day, and the addition of virtual participation (which is permitted in some but not all cases under our bylaws). Our bylaws permit a certain number of members to call a meeting by their own action (I.e. they don’t request a meeting and then the Secretary sends out a notice). Sometimes changes are made because the requesters didn’t think everything through and they want to change the logistics. Other times our chairman wants the meeting to be different from how it was independently called and sends subsequent updates with his changes. Unsurprisingly, this creates confusion and strife amongst the members, as they are unsure if they have the latest information and wonder if changes are made to try and advantage certain members and disadvantage others. I searched through RONR and didn’t find anything that addresses changes to a meeting notice. From past experience, I suspect that means that it isn’t addressed because everyone knows that you can’t change a meeting’s logistics after the notice has been sent out. The changes are not minor (e.g. the projector isn’t working in room 1 so the meeting is moved to adjacent room 2 with a note on the door to room 1 so that there is no chance of confusion. It is sometimes a different building at a different time. Perhaps I missed something in RONR. I appreciate any thoughts from the experts on this forum.

Thanks everyone for sharing your wisdom. I will review each comment and read the references and get back to you with any questions.

I’m back with more horror stories from my organization’s ongoing internecine conflict. I appreciate the thoughtful and helpful insights from the members of this forum. The latest matter is attempts by both factions in our organization to limit members from exercising rights they would otherwise have with statements on the agenda itself. Our organization is required to have a regular meeting each quarter. One of the factions is afraid of what might happen in such a meeting, so when they send out the notice of the regular quarterly meeting, the proposed agenda that accompanies the notice states that it cannot be amended. They then claim that since our rules require a supermajority to amend the agenda, that it what is required to change it. They remove the step of adopting the agenda that is normally on our agenda (though not necessarily required by any of our rules other than the reference to RONR). The other faction is concerned that business never gets completed because members (understandably) grow weary of the constant bickering and eventually have had enough and a motion is made and adopted to adjourn the meeting. So they put on the agenda (either the proposed agenda for a meeting, or, as an amendment to the agenda before it is adopted) a provision that the meeting cannot be adjourned until the entire agenda has been completed. They then maintain that since this is part of the adopted agenda, to adjourn the meeting before all of the business on the agenda has been addressed, a supermajority vote to amend the agenda is required to remove the requirement that adjournment can only occur after all of the items on the agenda have been addressed by the members. My gut says that neither of these approaches is permissible because they interfere with the members basic rights, but I haven’t been able to put my finger on the chapter and verse in RONR that address it. I welcome your thoughts and insights.

Thanks. Our chair could be removed by our state organization, but he has threatened to sue them if they do, and they have decided not to get involved.

First, thanks for sharing your insights. Our bylaws are written such that a group of members can call a meeting: "Special meetings also may be called by written petition signed by twenty percent (20%) of the total membership (not including vacancies) of the Executive Committee delivered to the Chairman, the Steering Committee, or to the Secretary at least fourteen (14) days before the desired meeting date, or in the event of a stated emergency, two (2) days. The purpose and order of business of the meeting must be stated in the call for any statutory, regular, or special meeting." This was done because a prior chairman refused to call meetings when requested by the members. Our bylaws appear to be silent on the location of a meeting. On a different occasion, we had two groups call for special meetings. The second group called for their meeting to be at the same time and place as the first one.

Quorum is 25% and I think it was satisfied at both meetings. We have tried holding another special meeting, and the same thing happened. It is a nightmare. Thanks for your comments and questions. "Special meetings also may be called by written petition signed by twenty percent (20%) of the total membership (not including vacancies) of the Executive Committee delivered to the Chairman, the Steering Committee, or to the Secretary at least fourteen (14) days before the desired meeting date, or in the event of a stated emergency, two (2) days."

Our organization is struggling. Our chairman is elected county-wide for a two year term while the members are elected from 100+ precincts within the county. The chair greatly abuses his position as chair, but whenever one of his rulings is appealed, he cites RRONR 24:3(2)(b) and declares that there cannot be an opinion different from his that is reasonable. The chair is opposed by a majority of the members, but not by the 2/3rds necessary to suspend the rules and remove him for the duration of the meeting. So, needless to say, our meetings are a disaster. Any thoughts on how to address this situation?

Our organization is suffering from a schism. Our chairman is elected in a county-wide election. Our 100+ members are elected in local precincts. Our bylaws provide that a Special Meeting can be called by a petition signed by 20% of the members with 14 day’s notice. A group delivered such a petition to our chairman towards the end of the day 14 days in advance. The other group scrambled and in the evening submitted a petition for a meeting for the same date and time but at a different location. The chairman confirmed both meetings. Both meetings were held and elected committee chairs so now we have two sets of committee chairs and members. Kind of reminds me of the Middle Ages when there were two popes who excommunicated each other This seems wrong on many levels, but it is our reality. If our chairman's interpretation is correct, with 100 members, we could have 5 parallel meetings called and confirmed. I realize RR is designed to help people acting in good faith to work together harmoniously and can't possibly foresee or prevent all the things a determined minority might do to frustrate the majority, but this seems like something that just shouldn't be allowed to happen. Our chairman says that he had no choice but to confirm both meetings, though his allies are the ones who called the second meeting, and it seem to serve his purpose to divert the majority to the first-called meeting, while he met with his allies separately, and installed his preferred committee chairs.