called meeting results and questions

[Guest jim]

Hi all,

Regardless of being told that proper notification of a called meeting was not given to membership (due to the fact that the purpose of the meeting was withheld), the meeting took place anyway.

After the meeting was opened I immediately made a “point of order” stating that since the member rights were violate by withholding this information by not stating the purpose for the meeting, it was not in order to continue the meeting.

The chairman requested that membership voice there opinion as to whether we should continue or not. On several occasions I stated that a ruling from the chair was in order rather than asking the membership what they wanted to do. I read a portion of our by-laws and RONR that addressed this issue.

It was/is the opinion of the chair (and others) that RONR could be set aside in the spirit of getting something accomplished even though our by-laws state the following:

Order of Conferences

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall serve as the guide for conducting all business conferences.

After a lot of discussion the meeting was adjourned.

My thought is that since our by-laws state that we must use RONR then the only way for them to put them aside is if they leave the organization which established those rules for us to follow. Am I correct?

Furthermore, since no one else has any knowledge of RONR almost every person that spoke against the “point of order” was wrong in their comments as it pertained to proper procedures. Since the chair allowed this to happen, it was impossible to correct all the errors that were spoken. I felt the need to constantly address each speaker (although I did not) so that the meeting would not be slanted toward one group.

The chair was not impartial as he was voicing his opinion after each speaker by making comments like, “I appreciate your comments” or “I agree” (if supporting his actions), otherwise he would say either “okay” or “I hear what you are saying” to those that spoke against.

Ladies and Gentlemen, that’s why we use rules.

Lastly, since the meeting was adjourned after discussion only, what should the minutes look like?

Opened

Point of order raised (stating the reason)

Meeting adjourned

(along with the other heading info. of course)

Is that correct?

Thanks for all the help,

Jim

[tctheatc]

It was/is the opinion of the chair (and others) that RONR could be set aside in the spirit of getting something accomplished even though our by-laws state the following:

Order of Conferences

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall serve as the guide for conducting all business conferences.

............

My thought is that since our by-laws state that we must use RONR ......

Gee.... I'm not an expert by any means, but I'm not sure your bylaws say what you say they say! "guide"? That's kinda vague, and others appear to be interpreting it differently. And that's what happens: YOU interpret YOUR bylaws, a tune sung often on this board.

I would point out that RONR says you should use the language on p 569 lines 30-35. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to argue the language your group uses could be interpreted to be somewhat less binding.

[David A Foulkes]

The chairman requested that membership voice there opinion as to whether we should continue or not.

The Chair is supposed to rule (well taken or not well taken) on a Point of Order. He can also consult the parliamentary authority (RONR we hope), the parliamentarian, or "request the advice of experienced members." However, if he is in doubt (and that is key, in my opinion) as to how to rule, he can put the vote to the assembly and let the majority decide. (There is no Appeal from a decision of the assembly) This is of course not the same as asking for their opinion. See page 245.

The bylaws need to be amended to include proper language, as tctheatc notes, although having what you have in there now could (I supposed) be considered "persuasive" enough, at least for some members, to conclude that RONR is the parliamentary authority. (see p. 16 ll. 23-26)

Of course, if the leadership is going to play fast and loose with the rules, it's going to take some membership action to get things on track.

[Josh Martin]

It was/is the opinion of the chair (and others) that RONR could be set aside in the spirit of getting something accomplished

The chair was incorrect in this instance, and his ruling was ironic as it doesn't seem the assembly actually accomplished anything at this meeting.

Order of Conferences

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall serve as the guide for conducting all business conferences.

This is horrible wording for establishing your parliamentary authority, so it's no wonder the chair ruled incorrectly. You should amend your Bylaws to include the recommended wording for establishing the society's parliamentary authority.

My thought is that since our by-laws state that we must use RONR then the only way for them to put them aside is if they leave the organization which established those rules for us to follow. Am I correct?

Yes and no. The only way to "set aside" RONR in its entirety would be to amend the Bylaws so that RONR is no longer the organization's parliamentary authority, but it is generally appropriate to suspend the rules in order to accomplish a particular purpose. The rule which requires that the business to be conducted in a special meeting must be included in the call, however, is not suspendable as it protects the rights of absentees. Since it seems you didn't actually conduct any business, however, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

The chair was not impartial as he was voicing his opinion after each speaker by making comments like, “I appreciate your comments” or “I agree” (if supporting his actions), otherwise he would say either “okay” or “I hear what you are saying” to those that spoke against.

Well, the chairman shouldn't be interjecting after every speaker, but the chair is not required to be impartial on Points of Order and Appeals, since it is the chair's duty to make rulings on questions of order.

Lastly, since the meeting was adjourned after discussion only, what should the minutes look like?

Opened

Point of order raised (stating the reason)

Meeting adjourned

Is that correct?

Sounds accurate. The minutes might read something like this:

"A special meeting of the [Name of Society] was held on [Date of Meeting] at [Time of Call to Order], at [Location of Meeting], the President being in the chair and the Secretary being present.

A Point of Order was raised that the meeting could not be continued since the purpose for the meeting was not included in the call. The chair ruled the point not well taken since Robert's Rules could be set aside in the spirit of getting something accomplished.

The meeting adjourned at [Time of Adjournment]."

[Gary Novosielski]

It was/is the opinion of the chair (and others) that RONR could be set aside in the spirit of getting something accomplished

In the first place, he's wrong.

But I would put this, on a scale of nonsense, about equal with wanting to set aside a hammer and banging in the nails with your head, supposedly in the spirit of getting something built. Or maybe a little bit higher.