Late Notice of Meeting, any way to still conduct business?

[Guest Christina]

Hi all - My organization is required to conduct an Annual Meeting of it's members with ten days notice. Unfortunately, due to a late postal delivery, our notice was only 9 days. We have a particularly troublesome member of our organization who has brought this to our attention out of pure spite, the rest of the organization could care less. Is there anything that we can do to still hold the meeting?

Rescheduling this meeting would be painstaking and the worst part is, we have no business to conduct. The only thing we are doing is reviewing the state of the association.

[Guest Luke Wegner]

The number of days notice required is computed from the day the notice is mailed (RONR p. 90, l.11ff).

As long as the notice was sent at least 10 days in advance, you have given proper notice. (Unless, of course, your rules say something to the contrary.)

[David A Foulkes]

.... due to a late postal delivery ....

I gather by this you mean to say the secretary (or someone) went to the post office a day later than they should have, and not that the mailman was behind schedule on delivery day? There are some here who might say that as long as everyone knows about it, what's the problem? Others might say if notice wasn't properly given, despite all members being aware and even attending, the meeting is invalid. I think it's a decision your membership will need to decide. So......

Hold the meeting. When it's called to order, the spiteful member may raise a Point of Order regarding notice. The chair rules it not well taken ("9 days 10 days, what's the difference, we're all hear here, right?"). The spiteful member Appeals the decision of the chair, which requires a second. If any one other member sympathizes enough to second, the chair puts it to the assembly to vote to sustain the decision of the chair. If a majority in the negative sympathize with the spiteful member, they will overturn the chair's ruling and the meeting is over. Otherwise, you go about all your non-business. And don't cut it so close next time.

[Tim Wynn]

The chair rules it not well taken ("9 days 10 days, what's the difference...

You edited this post and left "hear?"

[David A Foulkes]

You edited this post and left "hear?"

Dam that spill chuck, it all ways let's some thing threw.

[Tim Wynn]

Dam that spill chuck, it all ways let's some thing threw.

He is a wise craftsman, who knows which tools to blame.

[David A Foulkes]

This nail is upside down. And this one, too. And this one! Oh, wait, they must be ceiling nails.

[tctheatc]

Hold the meeting. When it's called to order, the spiteful member may raise a Point of Order regarding notice. The chair rules it not well taken ("9 days 10 days, what's the difference, we're all hear here, right?"). The spiteful member Appeals the decision of the chair, which requires a second. If any one other member sympathizes enough to second, the chair puts it to the assembly to vote to sustain the decision of the chair. If a majority in the negative sympathize with the spiteful member, they will overturn the chair's ruling and the meeting is over. Otherwise, you go about all your non-business.

Exactly. Why is it so many people seem to think one crank can hold the entire assembly hostage? Majority rules is a basic principle of RONR. Sure there are some cases when an objection protects the minority, but this is obviously a case where the will of the assembly is clear.

and while we're picking nits, how about

the rest of the organization could care less

Shouldn't that be couldn't? If it's possible to care less, they must care some undetermined amount.

[Tim Wynn]

Exactly. Why is it so many people seem to think one crank can hold the entire assembly hostage? Majority rules is a basic principle of RONR. Sure there are some cases when an objection protects the minority, but this is obviously a case where the will of the assembly is clear.

Actually the bylaws rule... which were adopted by at least a majority vote.

[Josh Martin]

Is there anything that we can do to still hold the meeting?

Rescheduling this meeting would be painstaking and the worst part is, we have no business to conduct.

If the assembly truly has no business to conduct at the meeting, I wouldn't worry about the short notice. I would find it hard to argue that the rule protects absentees here, since in this instance, there is nothing for any absentees to be protected from. Even if the meeting were ruled invalid, that would not seem to have any meaningful effect, since there is no business to rule null and void.

If the assembly was conducting business at this meeting, my answer would be very different. It seems to me you lucked out this time, but take care in the future.

The chair rules it not well taken ("9 days 10 days, what's the difference, we're all hear here, right?").

Well, I would hope that the chair provides a better reasoning for his ruling than that (although I agree with the ruling itself).

Sure there are some cases when an objection protects the minority, but this is obviously a case where the will of the assembly is clear.

I think the salient point here is that in this case, the rule does not provide any protection to individual members or to absentees, not how clear the will of the assembly is. There are many cases in which the assembly may not properly take a particular action, no matter how clear its will might be.