President Setting Terms for Discussion and Adjournment

[Guest Colleen]

The president of our organization has decided that we are to have a special meeting. It was put together at the last minute and we are receiving the agenda less than two days before the meeting.

In this special meeting, the agenda lists questions that are eligible for discussion and those that are not (the president says we have had ample time for discussion via email). Therefore, we will vote immediately on some questions.

The meeting is limited in time (one hour) and we have been told the following: if we don't decide, the president will decide.

In addition, the president has threatened that if the meeting is "unprofessional" or if anyone acts inappropriately, the meeting will adjourn and she will make the decisions for us.

I don't know that I even need to ask this...how do we as an organization respond to this sort of situation? It seems clear to me that the president has overstepped her role. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

[Tim Wynn]

The president of our organization has decided that we are to have a special meeting. It was put together at the last minute and we are receiving the agenda less than two days before the meeting.

In this special meeting, the agenda lists questions that are eligible for discussion and those that are not (the president says we have had ample time for discussion via email). Therefore, we will vote immediately on some questions.

The meeting is limited in time (one hour) and we have been told the following: if we don't decide, the president will decide.

In addition, the president has threatened that if the meeting is "unprofessional" or if anyone acts inappropriately, the meeting will adjourn and she will make the decisions for us.

I don't know that I even need to ask this...how do we as an organization respond to this sort of situation? It seems clear to me that the president has overstepped her role. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

First, if your bylaws don't authorize special meetings, you can't have one. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 91-93.

The assembly (the members at a meeting) decides on any limits or extensions of debate, not the president, and debate can only take place in a meeting, not by e-mail. Also, the president cannot make decisions on behalf of the board.

If she tries any of this raise a point of order, and appeal from the decision of the chair, if necessary. See RONR (11th ed.), Sections 23 & 24.

[Trina]

First of all, do your bylaws provide for special meetings, and describe how they are to be called? Special meetings cannot be held at all unless the bylaws authorize them. Assuming they are allowed, and that the president has followed the rules in calling a special meeting, you are quite correct that the president has overstepped her authority (or, at least, has overstepped any authority she would be given via the rules in RONR; it's always conceivable that your bylaws give the president dictatorial powers )

The business to be conducted at a special meeting must be described in the call to the meeting. However, this does not mean that someone can decide ahead of time exactly what motions will be made and how they will be voted on. It is not proper to limit the assembly to 'discussion only' items. It is also not proper to (attempt to) constrain the assembly to vote without an opportunity for debate.

Regarding the threats that 'the president will decide' if the assembly doesn't, or that she will adjourn the meeting and make decisions for you, the president has no unilateral powers of this sort -- she can't adjourn a meeting if the members don't agree, and she certainly can't make decisions on matters that are for the assembly to decide.

It sounds as though the assembly may wish to relieve the president of her presiding officer duties at this meeting, and select someone else to chair (see RONR 11th ed. pp. 651-652).

I should back up my earlier comments with citations also, but don't have time at the moment (I'll add some later, although other posters are likely to beat me to it).

Reading Mr. Wynn's comments -- of course it makes sense to appeal from the ruling of the chair, and see if that brings her to her senses... before you decide to throw her out of the chair entirely

[BryanSullo]

. . .

In addition, the president has threatened that if the meeting is "unprofessional" or if anyone acts inappropriately, the meeting will adjourn and she will make the decisions for us.

. . .

She is being unprofessional by making this inappropriate statement. Oh, the irony.

[Josh Martin]

It sounds as though the assembly may wish to relieve the president of her presiding officer duties at this meeting, and select someone else to chair (see RONR 11th ed. pp. 651-652).

I concur, and if that isn't enough to bring the President in line, it might be time to remove her permanently. The original poster should see FAQ #20 for more information.

[J. J.]

Provided the meeting was properly called, vote against adjournment. If she just declares the meeting adjourned, raise a point of order with an appeal if necessary. If she walks out, let the vice president preside. If the vice president is there or is unwilling, elect a president pro tem and continue the meeting without her.

Print this post and show it to her just after the meeting starts.

Let her know the meeting will go on with or without her.

[Josh Martin]

Provided the meeting was properly called...

Based on the facts in the first paragraph in the original post, I have my doubts on that point.

[J. J.]

Based on the facts in the first paragraph in the original post, I have my doubts on that point.

That's why I said "provided."

[Gary Novosielski]

If the vice president is not there or is unwilling, elect a president pro tem and continue the meeting without her.

Print this post and show it to her just after the meeting starts.

Fixed not-hole problem. There, NOW you can print it.