rhammar Posted February 9, 2011 at 06:40 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 06:40 PM I serve a parliamentarian for a large church at its annual and special business meetings. Its annual business meeting has been noticed for tonight, but due to ice/snow accumulation a decision was made to cancel the meeting. The problem is that the church bylaws require the annual business meeting to be conducted "within 52 days of December 31." That means the meeting must be held not later than February 21. Due to numerous other commitments, activities, etc. it appears that the meeting cannot be held until February 27. The question is how to conduct a lawful meeting consistently with the 52-day limit. I have come up with two ideas:1. RONR (p. 17) states that "rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can be suspended by a two-thirds vote." Would it be reasonable to construe the bylaws' "52 day" limitation as a rule of order that could be suspended at the rescheduled meeting?2. Have a small group meet tonight without a quorum, and adopt a motion to fix the time to adjourn until Feb. 27. RONR (p. 336) states that "the only action that can legally be taken in the absence of a quorum is to fix the time to which to adjourn." Since the effect of such a motion is to continue tonight's session until a specified future date, it would appear that the 52-day limit is satisfied since the meeting on Feb. 27 is not a new meeting but rather a continuation of tonight's meeting.I would appreciate any thoughts on how to proceed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 9, 2011 at 06:44 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 06:44 PM #2 is the only way to go (good job for thinking of it), since the day limitation is not in the nature of a rule of order, and there is no authority to cancel a meeting under the rules in RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 9, 2011 at 08:41 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 08:41 PM 1. RONR (p. 17) states that "rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can be suspended by a two-thirds vote." Would it be reasonable to construe the bylaws' "52 day" limitation as a rule of order that could be suspended at the rescheduled meeting?2. Have a small group meet tonight without a quorum, and adopt a motion to fix the time to adjourn until Feb. 27. RONR (p. 336) states that "the only action that can legally be taken in the absence of a quorum is to fix the time to which to adjourn." Since the effect of such a motion is to continue tonight's session until a specified future date, it would appear that the 52-day limit is satisfied since the meeting on Feb. 27 is not a new meeting but rather a continuation of tonight's meeting.Yeah, you want idea #2. Rules of order govern orderly conduct of business within a meeting, so your 52-day rule is not in the nature of a rule of order, and may not be suspended.But an adjourned meeting gets you neatly out of it. You have held the meeting as required, but the absence of a quorum makes conducting business impossible. Make sure you take minutes of tonight's meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 9, 2011 at 08:48 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 08:48 PM 2. Have a small group meet tonight without a quorum....And in the off-chance a quorum does appear, nothing prevents you from continuing with your game plan. Just hope they aren't upset about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 9, 2011 at 09:16 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 09:16 PM Have a small group meet without a quorum...Really? Will everyone be invited to this meeting? Or are you inviting only a select few? I'm not asking to be a wiseass, but I believe RONR's provision for an inquorate meeting to which you allude covers for when a quorum isn't established. Can't help but think purposely avoiding a quorum by not providing notice to all crosses some line.Or was the plan different from how I'm taking it?I had a similar situation in December for a regular meeting. It was obvious that attendance would be very sparse, but cancelling was not an option. Everyone was duly provided with notice but, when I was asked whether the meeting was still on (by people urging me to cancel it), I truthfully replied that yes, it was, but that I did not expect there to be a quorum. And lo and behold it turned out I was right. When I called the meeting to order, there were two members in attendance--the treasurer (who was appointed secretary pro tem by unanimous consent) and me. The time to which to adjourn was fixed, and the meeting was adjourned.And that's about how long the minutes were, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 9, 2011 at 09:20 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 09:20 PM As for tctheatc's missing post, since the meeting is tonight, I believe everyone has been notified by now. But you do make a subtle point. It would be unwise to dis-invite anyone, especially if a quorum does show up and the motion to Fix the Time to Adjourn To is defeated, there's a bit of a problem ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted February 9, 2011 at 09:30 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 09:30 PM I took that post down because I'd missed some of the salient points. I need to be more careful about reading posts on the tiny iPod screen and without my reading glasses! I apologize for any confusion. I'd glossed over the part that this was the meeting already scheduled for tonight, so people' had been notifed.I'm sure all is well.But yeah, it IS still the meeting of the church, and if a quorum shows up, wanting to do business... better be ready!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.