POSTPONED MEETING

[Guest NORMAN TAYLOR]

REGULARLY MEETING HELD ON MARCH 14. AFTER SEVERAL HOURS OF DISCUSSION A MOTION WAS MADE AND PASSED THAT "THE MEETING BE POSTPONED UNTIL 6:30 PM ON MARCH 28". INSTEAD OF RESUMING THE AGENDA FROM THE POINT IN THE AGENDA ON THE MARCH 14 MEETING, THE PRESIDING OFFICER RULED THAT THIS MEETING OF MARCH 28 WAS IN FACT A "SPECIAL MEETING" THEREBY IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON DISCUSSIONS AND MOTIONS. IN FACT, NO MOTIONS WERE ALLOWED; INCLUDING A MOTION THAT THE VOTE ON THE QUESTION UNDER DISCUSSION BE BY A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY, INSTEAD THE PRESIDING OFFICER MANDATED THAT THE VOTE MUST BE DETERMINED BY ONLY A SIMPLE MAJORITY. IS THIS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER “TO POSTPONE TO THAT CERTAIN TIME”?

[Chris Harrison]

First, please don't post in all CAPs because that is considered to be online shouting and we can "hear" you just fine.

What you all did was create an Adjourned Meeting (RONR pp. 90-91) rather than a Special Meeting (RONR pp. 89-90). The presiding officer was incorrect in calling it a Special Meeting (unless you all have some very strange rules).

[Gary Novosielski]

REGULARLY MEETING HELD ON MARCH 14. AFTER SEVERAL HOURS OF DISCUSSION A MOTION WAS MADE AND PASSED THAT "THE MEETING BE POSTPONED UNTIL 6:30 PM ON MARCH 28". INSTEAD OF RESUMING THE AGENDA FROM THE POINT IN THE AGENDA ON THE MARCH 14 MEETING, THE PRESIDING OFFICER RULED THAT THIS MEETING OF MARCH 28 WAS IN FACT A "SPECIAL MEETING" THEREBY IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON DISCUSSIONS AND MOTIONS. IN FACT, NO MOTIONS WERE ALLOWED; INCLUDING A MOTION THAT THE VOTE ON THE QUESTION UNDER DISCUSSION BE BY A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY, INSTEAD THE PRESIDING OFFICER MANDATED THAT THE VOTE MUST BE DETERMINED BY ONLY A SIMPLE MAJORITY. IS THIS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER “TO POSTPONE TO THAT CERTAIN TIME”?

The presiding officer was incorrect. Motions are Postponed, meetings are Adjourned. Effectively, you adjourned the meeting to a future time, which creates an "Adjourned" meeting, which is considered to be a part of the same session as the original meeting. It was not a special meeting.

The chair was also incorrect in disallowing incidental motions which should have been allowed even if this were a special meeting. The business should have resumed at the point at which it was suspended at the first adjournment.