Cancellation of meeting

[Guest Noahhomeboy]

Hi!

My husband is a member of a club that holds its meeting every second Tuesday of the month. My husband and most of the members showed up for the meeting at a location different from the past meetings. Before the meeting even got started the President cancelled the meeting saying that it was too noisy in the location. He allowed everyone to order food on the club and then held a private conference outside the restaurant with the VP, Treasurer and secretary. Is he allowed to do this?

[Trina]

No, the president has no such unilateral power under the rules in RONR. In fact, even the whole assembly does not have the authority to actually 'cancel' a meeting -- although the assembly could have voted to adjourn the meeting, or to adjourn the meeting to a future time.

The members would have been entirely within their rights to continue the meeting after the President walked out, and to conduct club business at the meeting (assuming a quorum was still present).

As for allowing everyone to order food 'on the club', I have no idea whether that is allowed under your rules, or whether you are even asking a question about it. Certainly the Presidents of the organizations I belong to do not have authority to spend the organization's money on a large restaurant bill.

[SaintCad]

In effect, the president made a motion to adjourn and though not voted on, the membership consented. As Trina says, you did not have to consent. However, that mean that the rump session of the 4 officers could not take any action that should come before the assembly. It would be a question of how much you want to stand on principle but if the treasurer paid a bill that the assembly should have voted on, you can raise a point of order that the payment was never approved and needs to be voted on.

[George Mervosh]

Before the meeting even got started the President cancelled the meeting saying that it was too noisy in the location.

In effect, the president made a motion to adjourn and though not voted on, the membership consented.

Really?

[SaintCad]

Really?

That's how I had always heard that one reconciles RONR with a Chair walking out, in effect cancelling the meeting and the members saying I guess the meeting is over. Basically it is translated as

Chair: This meeting is OVER!!!! <storms out followed by his cronies> = Motion to adjourn

Member 1: What do we do? Member 2: Go home I guess. <everyone leaves> = Unanimous Consent

If that is not accurate, then how else can you match up the president's/assembly's action with RONR?

[George Mervosh]

Matching up his improper act isn't required.

It's a given assemblies may not know how to handle certain situations. It's a fact, as Trina noted, President's can't go cancelling meetings under any rule in RONR. Suggesting that everyone agreed with the President's ramrodding a cancellation down their throat isn't accurate either (see the first sentence of this reply).

Given the facts here, one thing is for sure......he can't canel the meeting unilaterally like he did.

What they should have done and should do in the future if the same thing happens again is:

1) Have the Secretary or another member call the meeting to order.

2) Elect a chairman pro-tem and, if necessary, a secretary pro-tem.

3) Assuming a quorum exists, they can hold the whole meeting if they so desire.

4) Whether a quorum exists or not, they can adjourn immediately, or set an adjourned meeting, and they have met their requirement to hold a meeting every second Tuesday of the month.

They should also consider disciplining the President if he exhibits future improper behavior such as this.

Ramrodding never equals unanimous consent, ever. Also, you can't say he adjourned a meeting that was never called to order. Avoid matching up improper conduct with proper procedure and procedural terms.

[Guest noahhomeboy]

The meeting never started.

[George Mervosh]

The meeting never started.

Yes, I saw that. Hopefully post #6 somewhat addresses what the members could have done.

[Josh Martin]

That's how I had always heard that one reconciles RONR with a Chair walking out, in effect cancelling the meeting and the members saying I guess the meeting is over. Basically it is translated as

Chair: This meeting is OVER!!!! <storms out followed by his cronies> = Motion to adjourn

Member 1: What do we do? Member 2: Go home I guess. <everyone leaves> = Unanimous Consent

If that is not accurate, then how else can you match up the president's/assembly's action with RONR?

I think it would be better to simply say that the meeting is effectively adjourned and leave it at that. The issue of "matching up" this scenario with RONR usually happens when some poster comes here panicking that a meeting is in some sort of limbo because it was never formally adjourned. We usually patiently explain that if everyone goes home, the meeting is effectively adjourned. If some posters here (perhaps even myself) equated that with unanimous consent because Mr. Elsman was not around to yell at us for doing so, the fault is ours.

In this case, the original poster's concern is not with how to conceptualize what happened, but with whether it was proper. As Mr. Mervosh notes, it most certainly was not - not even as a form of unanimous consent. With unanimous consent, the chair must still provide members the opportunity to object and make it clear what the question is (and the meeting also needs to be called to order first).