Calling a Meeting to Order

[Guest Jeanne310]

Am I correct that a meeting must be called to order for what transpires in that meeting to be valid? Is there any language that be used to call a meeting to order?

[Chris Harrison]

Am I correct that a meeting must be called to order for what transpires in that meeting to be valid? Is there any language that be used to call a meeting to order?

"The meeting will come to order," or, "The meeting will be in order."

(RONR p. 24).

Although technically the meeting needs to be called to order before business is conducted it would not constitute a continuing breach per RONR p. 244 as long as the meeting starts on time even if they just jump into business without any pomp or circumstance.

[Robert B Fish]

Re: "...language..."

[One rap of the gavel] "The meeting will come to order."

As noted earlier, simply starting the meeting or "Let's get going." will work although that's not the best style.

-Bob

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Am I correct that a meeting must be called to order for what transpires in that meeting to be valid?

What do you mean? -- How can something "transpire in that meeting" if the meeting itself never began?

Q. Are you arguing that the business which transpired in that meeting is somehow invalid because no one said, "The meeting shall come to order"?

That argument won't hold water.

Example: If a meeting is set for 7:00 p.m., then if there are motions being moved, and voted on, at 7:01, 7:03, 7:05, 7:07, etc., then it would insincere and facetious to assert that those motions are invalid because no one said "Come to order" at 7:00 p.m.

However, if those motions were to be entertained

(a.) at 6:30 (well before commencement), or

(b.) at 11:59 (well after adjournment),

then you have a strong argument that the motions are not valid.

Q. Where those motions entertained outside of the meeting day? meeting hour?

[Guest jeanne310]

What do you mean? -- How can something "transpire in that meeting" if the meeting itself never began?

Q. Are you arguing that the business which transpired in that meeting is somehow invalid because no one said, "The meeting shall come to order"?

That argument won't hold water.

Example: If a meeting is set for 7:00 p.m., then if there are motions being moved, and voted on, at 7:01, 7:03, 7:05, 7:07, etc., then it would insincere and facetious to assert that those motions are invalid because no one said "Come to order" at 7:00 p.m.

However, if those motions were to be entertained

(a.) at 6:30 (well before commencement), or

(b.) at 11:59 (well after adjournment),

then you have a strong argument that the motions are not valid.

Q. Where those motions entertained outside of the meeting day? meeting hour?

The meeting was held in a Yahoo Group. There was never anything stating that this was a meeting when the group was first started. There was also no time specified that the meeting should be taking place. Our bylaws state that the board must give notice of meetings.

[Tim Wynn]

The meeting was held in a Yahoo Group. There was never anything stating that this was a meeting when the group was first started. There was also no time specified that the meeting should be taking place. Our bylaws state that the board must give notice of meetings.

Do the bylaws authorize meeting in this way... electronically?

Do the bylaws authorize special meetings?

Was the meeting held in accordance with the bylaw provisions for special meetings, including the notice to be given and how it should be called?

If you answer "no" to any of these questions, you have a problem... and you didn't have a meeting.

[Jeanne310]

Do the bylaws authorize meeting in this way... electronically?

Do the bylaws authorize special meetings?

Was the meeting held in accordance with the bylaw provisions for special meetings, including the notice to be given and how it should be called?

If you answer "no" to any of these questions, you have a problem... and you didn't have a meeting.

They bylaws do allow electronic meetings and state that they must follow Robert's Rules. They also state that notice must be given for meetings. No notice was given. The group was opened and business started being transacted. I am guessing there would also be a problem with excluding one board member from this group and not allowing them to participate?

[Tim Wynn]

They bylaws do allow electronic meetings and state that they must follow Robert's Rules. They also state that notice must be given for meetings. No notice was given.

Well, then, no notice = no meeting.

The group was opened and business started being transacted.

If this was not a properly called meeting, the business was not transacted in the name of the organization.

I am guessing there would also be a problem with excluding one board member from this group and not allowing them to participate?

Board members have a right to attend meetings of the board and cannot be excluded, except through disciplinary action. However, since we're well on our way to establishing that this group was not an actual board meeting, excluding a board member from it would seem to do no harm, in a parliamentary sense.

[Jeanne310]

Thank you all so much for your help!

[Josh Martin]

They bylaws do allow electronic meetings and state that they must follow Robert's Rules.

RONR strongly advises that an assembly which has electronic meetings develop special rules of order to facilitate such meetings. The rules of RONR are written with the assumption that the members are meeting in person, so there will need to be some customized rules when that assumption is incorrect.