Meeting call is vague about starting time

[loose]

The call of the meeting mentions an informal get-together before the actual meeting begins. I ask the Chair when the actual meeting will begin and am told it will start whenever the group is ready. Is this kosher?

[Chris Harrison]

The call of the meeting mentions an informal get-together before the actual meeting begins. I ask the Chair when the actual meeting will begin and am told it will start whenever the group is ready. Is this kosher?

No. The call needs to specify a time when the meeting will start (RONR p. 5).

[tctheatc]

loose, I've had issues similar to the ones you've described in this forum and tried hard to get people to follow RONR. But to follow, first they have to understand. To that end, it may be helpful to offer, offer, offer, rather than hammer, hammer, hammer. Don't get me wrong, I see your point about the start time, but refusing to show up until the exact second the meeting is called to order may only serve to set you apart in the eyes of the board as a pot stirrer. In another thread, you mentioned calling a point of order before the meeting started. I admire your passion and moxie, but i wonder if a little more honey and a little less vinegar might work better, nome sane?

After all (in order to bring my remarks around to RONR specifically ) you can raise all the points of order you want. it sounds as if your chair sees things differently, so these points will be not well taken, likely. So you appeal, in which case it goes before the assembly/board for a vote. You're going to want and need a majority on your side to overturn the chair's ruling(s).

Chris is correct, of course, in his answer. Your chair will likely say he HAS specified when the meeting will start, take place, etc. When it will officially come to order is another thing, apparently, in his mind. You need others on your side to win this point. Bumping heads one on one with the chair will get you nowhere. getting people to view your efforts favorably might even get you elected as the new chair! You never know, I just got elected moderator-elect, so next year I'll be chairing. You can make it work, I'm sure.

[Rev Ed]

Also, sometimes an informal meeting while waiting for quorum to show up is perfectly legit. If the Chairman can see that quorum is not present, there is no point in calling the meeting to order - which I can see where the idea of the "group being ready" idea came from. This allows the members present to talk about whatever it is they are talking about until quorum is met. Sometimes a lot of brainstorming can occur during these informal sessions which lead to better decisions once the meeting actually starts.

However, if you can see that quorum is met (generally speaking it is a majority of the Board), you can always politely ask the Chairman to please call the meeting to order.

[Chris Harrison]

Also, sometimes an informal meeting while waiting for quorum to show up is perfectly legit.

Agreed but the problem with having no set time for the meeting to start besides saying "it will start whenever the group is ready" can cause absentee issues because without much doubt someone will inevitably show up at the meeting after it is called to order and object to the situation because there was no fixed time in the call. Things would be much easier if the call had some fixed time specified and when that time arrives they can start if they want (and no absentee issues will be involved) or they can recess if they want for a while longer.

[tctheatc]

Well, it's partially set inasmuch as it won't be before the start of the informal discussion. We're halfway there!

[loose]

loose, I've had issues similar to the ones you've described in this forum and tried hard to get people to follow RONR. But to follow, first they have to understand. To that end, it may be helpful to offer, offer, offer, rather than hammer, hammer, hammer. Don't get me wrong, I see your point about the start time, but refusing to show up until the exact second the meeting is called to order may only serve to set you apart in the eyes of the board as a pot stirrer. In another thread, you mentioned calling a point of order before the meeting started. I admire your passion and moxie, but i wonder if a little more honey and a little less vinegar might work better, nome sane?

After all (in order to bring my remarks around to RONR specifically ) you can raise all the points of order you want. it sounds as if your chair sees things differently, so these points will be not well taken, likely. So you appeal, in which case it goes before the assembly/board for a vote. You're going to want and need a majority on your side to overturn the chair's ruling(s).

Chris is correct, of course, in his answer. Your chair will likely say he HAS specified when the meeting will start, take place, etc. When it will officially come to order is another thing, apparently, in his mind. You need others on your side to win this point. Bumping heads one on one with the chair will get you nowhere. getting people to view your efforts favorably might even get you elected as the new chair! You never know, I just got elected moderator-elect, so next year I'll be chairing. You can make it work, I'm sure.

Congratulations! Thanks for the tip. I know you're right.

[loose]

Also, sometimes an informal meeting while waiting for quorum to show up is perfectly legit. If the Chairman can see that quorum is not present, there is no point in calling the meeting to order - which I can see where the idea of the "group being ready" idea came from. This allows the members present to talk about whatever it is they are talking about until quorum is met. Sometimes a lot of brainstorming can occur during these informal sessions which lead to better decisions once the meeting actually starts.

However, if you can see that quorum is met (generally speaking it is a majority of the Board), you can always politely ask the Chairman to please call the meeting to order.

Good point. This brainstorming before the meeting begins, in our case, is I think a slippery slope because some people use the time to weigh in while others are not in debate mode and thus the loudmouths imply a concensus being reached. You know?

[tctheatc]

Good point. This brainstorming before the meeting begins, in our case, is I think a slippery slope because some people use the time to weigh in while others are not in debate mode and thus the loudmouths imply a concensus being reached.

They can think what they want. All that matters is the actual votes taken.

[David A Foulkes]

Good point. This brainstorming before the meeting begins, in our case, is I think a slippery slope because some people use the time to weigh in while others are not in debate mode and thus the loudmouths imply a concensus being reached. You know?

Regardless, whatever they talk about has (or should have) no bearing on what is actually decided. The issues discussed still need to be moved as motions, and debate should be open to all members in attendance to present their viewpoints before the vote is actually taken. The loudmouths can still present their side, but that does not mean a consensus has been reached, nor a decision.

[Rev Ed]

Agreed but the problem with having no set time for the meeting to start besides saying "it will start whenever the group is ready" can cause absentee issues because without much doubt someone will inevitably show up at the meeting after it is called to order and object to the situation because there was no fixed time in the call. Things would be much easier if the call had some fixed time specified and when that time arrives they can start if they want (and no absentee issues will be involved) or they can recess if they want for a while longer.

True. If the reason is that the Chiarman is waiting for quorum, then he/her should say so. For example, that happened once in an organization I belong to. There was aspecial meeting of the membership, and as a lot of members showed up, the Chairman refused requests to call the meeting to order until it was obvious that members had stopped arriving and the Registrar could provide an accurate head count. Once the members appeared to stop arriving (the Chairman had a clear view of the door), he called the meeting to order.

[David A Foulkes]

True. If the reason is that the Chiarman is waiting for quorum, then he/her should say so. For example, that happened once in an organization I belong to. There was aspecial meeting of the membership, and as a lot of members showed up, the Chairman refused requests to call the meeting to order until it was obvious that members had stopped arriving and the Registrar could provide an accurate head count. Once the members appeared to stop arriving (the Chairman had a clear view of the door), he called the meeting to order.

I would think that if the meeting (special or otherwise) was scheduled for a certain time, and a quorum was not immediately present at that time, but members were still arriving (late), as soon as a quorum was present the meeting should have been called to order, even if other members arrived even later. If the quorum had been present at the called time, it would have (and should have) been called to order at that time, regardless of how many were absent or even still showing up.

[Rev Ed]

True - but at the smae time attendance was heavy and the issue controversial. If the Chairman had called the meeting to order prior to when it appears that everyone had arrived, people may have claimed that there was a bias - sometimes it is more practical to wait the extra few minutes.

[Gary Novosielski]

True - but at the smae time attendance was heavy and the issue controversial. If the Chairman had called the meeting to order prior to when it appears that everyone had arrived, people may have claimed that there was a bias - sometimes it is more practical to wait the extra few minutes.

Well, that can cut both ways. Someone can accuse the chair of bias for starting late, perhaps waiting for his supporters to arrive, even though there was a quorum on hand at the appointed hour.

The best defense against a bias charge is starting on time. That's the only time you don't need to come up with an excuse for.

[Rev Ed]

Well, that can cut both ways. Someone can accuse the chair of bias for starting late, perhaps waiting for his supporters to arrive, even though there was a quorum on hand at the appointed hour.

The best defense against a bias charge is starting on time. That's the only time you don't need to come up with an excuse for.

Or call the meeting to order, and then ask for a motion to recess the meeting until everyone in the registration line has finished - or for a fixed period of time like 10 minutes so that registration is completed. I just realized this - too bad I did not realize that at the time.

[loose]

Congratulations! Thanks for the tip. I know you're right.

[loose]

I don't think I'm making myself clear. The chairman refuses to call the meeting to order until he's spoken on his list of topics to the group. Then he asks for a "motion" to start the meeting and calls the meeting to order. So we never know when the meeting is going to begin. The meeting call says 7pm but it could be 8:15 before anybody's allowed to make a motion or debate or vote.

I raised a point of order about his not calling the meeting to order. He flipped me the bird. Now the Chairman wants to amend the bylaws by replacing the standard clause naming RR as authority with four paragraphs of his creation. His text says there's to be a RR part of the meeting within the meeting. The rest of the meeting is per his design with the chairman being authorized to dictate meeting agenda.

And the rest of the board has no appreciation for RR - bunch of sheep.

[Chris Harrison]

I don't think I'm making myself clear. The chairman refuses to call the meeting to order until he's spoken on his list of topics to the group. Then he asks for a "motion" to start the meeting and calls the meeting to order. So we never know when the meeting is going to begin. The meeting call says 7pm but it could be 8:15 before anybody's allowed to make a motion or debate or vote.

I raised a point of order about his not calling the meeting to order. He flipped me the bird. Now the Chairman wants to amend the bylaws by replacing the standard clause naming RR as authority with four paragraphs of his creation. His text says there's to be a RR part of the meeting within the meeting. The rest of the meeting is per his design with the chairman being authorized to dictate meeting agenda.

And the rest of the board has no appreciation for RR - bunch of sheep.

Time to get a new Chairman. While you are doing that see RONR p. 642 lines 11-28. The Chairman is being too big for his britches (and the Board is letting him do that) and it is time to set him straight. Of course if the Board (and Membership) don't have the stomach to stand up for their rights there isn't anything you personally can do about that.

[tctheatc]

I raised a point of order about his not calling the meeting to order. He flipped me the bird.

You really want to be a part of this?

[Josh Martin]

You really want to be a part of this?

The chairman is only one member. If he's a problem, the assembly can remove him from his position and/or from membership. I wouldn't consider leaving an association unless a majority of the entire membership was a pain. In fact, I probably wouldn't consider leaving even then, but I'm especially stubborn.

[loose]

You really want to be a part of this?

Loggerheads, as you point out, not the way. I am off to focus on the politics. I wish there were another route.

[loose]

The chairman is only one member. If he's a problem, the assembly can remove him from his position and/or from membership. I wouldn't consider leaving an association unless a majority of the entire membership was a pain. In fact, I probably wouldn't consider leaving even then, but I'm especially stubborn.

Thanks for your take on it.

[Gary Novosielski]

Thanks for your take on it.

The chairman is clearly beyond saving. It remains to be seen whether the group is.

[tctheatc]

The chairman is only one member. If he's a problem, the assembly can remove him from his position and/or from membership. I wouldn't consider leaving an association unless a majority of the entire membership was a pain. In fact, I probably wouldn't consider leaving even then, but I'm especially stubborn.

True, but it seems the membership is largely complicit in the chair's shenanigans. As in the old saying "you get the leadership you deserve" , the members of the board just go along according to loose. If it were just a rogue chair and the larger body not putting up with it, OK. And in that case RONR would be helpful in reigning him in. I'm not sure I'd leave the membership rolls either, but participating in the governance when it has gone kablooey like this can lead to high blood pressure and such.

[Josh Martin]

True, but it seems the membership is largely complicit in the chair's shenanigans. As in the old saying "you get the leadership you deserve" , the members of the board just go along according to loose. If it were just a rogue chair and the larger body not putting up with it, OK. And in that case RONR would be helpful in reigning him in.

RONR (specifically, Ch. XX) is helpful in reigning in rogue boards as well.