Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
Beth Ann

Adjournment of Special Meeting With No Specific Date and Time Set

Recommended Posts

What governs the reconvening of an adjourned special meeting when no specific date or time was set at the adjournment only the President's statement she would give a full ten day notice? Can the President in the absence of a motion to adjourn or motion to fix time to adjourn, exercise a perogative to reconvene with under 48 hour notice? Is she excused from providing the normal notice time of ten days for non-emergency? If notice is given which does not allow all members the chance to attend or some members receive notice after the meeting has taken place, is it an illegal meeting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the order that you asked....

Governs? RONR and your bylaws. (Maybe state law, too).

Prerogative? Only if your bylaws give the president that authority.

Excused? Where did the "normal notice time" that you mention come from?

Illegal? "Improper" is the parliamentary word - we don't do "legal" here. Hard to answer without facts of why there was a late delivery. Raise a point of order at the meeting that the meeting is improper (if you think it is) and go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What governs the reconvening of an adjourned special meeting when no specific date or time was set at the adjournment only the President's statement she would give a full ten day notice? Can the President in the absence of a motion to adjourn or motion to fix time to adjourn, exercise a perogative to reconvene with under 48 hour notice? Is she excused from providing the normal notice time of ten days for non-emergency? If notice is given which does not allow all members the chance to attend or some members receive notice after the meeting has taken place, is it an illegal meeting?

It sounds as though the meeting was adjourned to a future time, but that the future time was not specifically nailed down (as is normally done with this motion). If the assembly agreed to the President's suggestion (that she would choose the future date/time, and would give ten days notice), I think this amounts to (in mathematical terms) defining the future meeting time as a variable rather than a constant. Although RONR does not give an example of this kind of language, I don't see why such a definition would be improper on the face of it. If the President disobeyed the conditions (10 days notice required) of the motion to adjourn to a future time, I think the 48-hour-notice meeting would be improper. It seems similar to a situation where the assembly has voted to set an adjourned meeting for, say, June 30, and the President 'decides' to move the meeting date up to June 23 (can't be done).

I am puzzled though as to what you mean by "in the absence of a motion to adjourn or motion to fix time to adjourn" -- did the assembly not agree (even by unanimous consent) to adjourn the special meeting to a future time? If the meeting was simply adjourned (over and done with), or if people wandered out without any formal motion to adjourn at all, then the meeting was finished (and can't be called to order again at some future time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

It sounds as though the meeting was adjourned to a future time, but that the future time was not specifically nailed down (as is normally done with this motion). If the assembly agreed to the President's suggestion (that she would choose the future date/time, and would give ten days notice), I think this amounts to (in mathematical terms) defining the future meeting time as a variable rather than a constant. Although RONR does not give an example of this kind of language, I don't see why such a definition would be improper on the face of it. If the President disobeyed the conditions (10 days notice required) of the motion to adjourn to a future time, I think the 48-hour-notice meeting would be improper. It seems similar to a situation where the assembly has voted to set an adjourned meeting for, say, June 30, and the President 'decides' to move the meeting date up to June 23 (can't be done).

I am puzzled though as to what you mean by "in the absence of a motion to adjourn or motion to fix time to adjourn" -- did the assembly not agree (even by unanimous consent) to adjourn the special meeting to a future time? If the meeting was simply adjourned (over and done with), or if people wandered out without any formal motion to adjourn at all, then the meeting was finished (and can't be called to order again at some future time).

Wouldn't "to meet at the call of the chair", which is something in RONR, be proper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't "to meet at the call of the chair", which is something in RONR, be proper?

Yes, as Trina said -- if the special meeting was adjourned to meet at a future time. If, on the other hand, as Trina said, the special meeting adjourned, period, then that special meeting is quits; that adjournment is final.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the order that you asked....

Governs? RONR and your bylaws. (Maybe state law, too).

Prerogative? Only if your bylaws give the president that authority.

Excused? Where did the "normal notice time" that you mention come from?

Illegal? "Improper" is the parliamentary word - we don't do "legal" here. Hard to answer without facts of why there was a late delivery. Raise a point of order at the meeting that the meeting is improper (if you think it is) and go from there.

Thank you. To your question..."normal notice time" comes from our ByLaws specifying a minimun 10 day notice which can be waived if emergency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh...Kay...

Do your bylaws say who or what body is authorized to decide when the 10 day notice can be "waived"?

I gather, from your original post, that the president did the waiving (for herself) when she put out a 48 hour meeting notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh...Kay...

Do your bylaws say who or what body is authorized to decide when the 10 day notice can be "waived"?

I gather, from your original post, that the president did the waiving (for herself) when she put out a 48 hour meeting notice.

Thank you. The bylaws do not state specifically who or what body may waive the 10 day notice. Instead it states in case of emergency, a condition, the 10 day notice shall be given(See below excerpt from bylaws). In the absence of specification, the who (President) or what body (Executive Board or Five Members) requesting/calling the meeting would determine if the meeting is an emergency.

The initial meeting was called as a special meeting, no emergency. The reconvening made no mention of emergency.

Our chapter bylaws regarding special meetings and emergency special meetings state:

"Special meetings may be called by the Regent or by the Executive Board and shall be called upon the written request of five members. Except in cases of emergency, ten (10) days notice shall be given. The business transacted at any special meeting shall be limited to that stated in the call to the meeting."

Some were told the President could reconvene the adjourned special meeting without notice per RONR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like it may be time to tidy up your bylaws. In particular get rid of ALL "passive voice" statements ("Except in cases of emergency, ten (10) days notice shall be given") and replace them by at the least stating who decides there is an emergency, who gives the 10 day notice (or shorter time in an "emergency"), &c.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beth Ann, please pay close attention to the sagacious words of Trina. Please reply to them if you want sensible follow-up, because what she says and what she asks are critical to understanding this.

(Is this the same or a different meeting from the one in your other thread?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beth Ann, please pay close attention to the sagacious words of Trina. Please reply to them if you want sensible follow-up, because what she says and what she asks are critical to understanding this.

(Is this the same or a different meeting from the one in your other thread?)

The threads are related. The meeting precipitating the meeting in this thread was a member requested emergency special meeting which the President did not schedule until a month later with the requested special meeting purpose changed.

Thank you for the guidance on appropriate follow-up to discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds as though the meeting was adjourned to a future time, but that the future time was not specifically nailed down (as is normally done with this motion). If the assembly agreed to the President's suggestion (that she would choose the future date/time, and would give ten days notice), I think this amounts to (in mathematical terms) defining the future meeting time as a variable rather than a constant. Although RONR does not give an example of this kind of language, I don't see why such a definition would be improper on the face of it. If the President disobeyed the conditions (10 days notice required) of the motion to adjourn to a future time, I think the 48-hour-notice meeting would be improper. It seems similar to a situation where the assembly has voted to set an adjourned meeting for, say, June 30, and the President 'decides' to move the meeting date up to June 23 (can't be done).

I am puzzled though as to what you mean by "in the absence of a motion to adjourn or motion to fix time to adjourn" -- did the assembly not agree (even by unanimous consent) to adjourn the special meeting to a future time? If the meeting was simply adjourned (over and done with), or if people wandered out without any formal motion to adjourn at all, then the meeting was finished (and can't be called to order again at some future time).

Thank you. Your example is most helpful. It was agreed we would adjourn and the President would give a full 10 days notice. The comment regarding "in absence of a motion to adjourn or motion to fix time to adjourn" expresses the question can the President state she is not bound by an agreement when no motion to that affect was made. Additionally, cite RONR stating she can reconvene the adjourned special meeting without notice. Or mis-cite RONR with respect to these circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was agreed we would adjourn and the President would give a full 10 days notice.

Well now. Before, I was thinking that the president had simply told people, on her own, about the ten days' notice -- and later had merely gone back on her word, which, slimy though it may be, parliamentary procedure can do little about (see FAQ #20). But if the assembly had participated, then her statement might have the force of an action by the assembly, perhaps through general consent (p. 68 in your -In Brief; p. 54 - 55 in RONR). So, how was it agreed? (Watch out for the passive voice!)

... The comment regarding "in absence of a motion to adjourn or motion to fix time to adjourn" expresses the question can the President state she is not bound by an agreement when no motion to that affect was made.

See above.

Additionally, cite RONR stating she can reconvene the adjourned special meeting without notice. Or mis-cite RONR with respect to these circumstances.

The citation is RONR, 11th Ed, p. 244, lines 21 - 23.

...

Thank you Mr. Tesser for enlightening me.

Wy do I get singled out? Everybody else did the work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now. Before, I was thinking that the president had simply told people, on her own, about the ten days' notice -- and later had merely gone back on her word, which, slimy though it may be, parliamentary procedure can do little about (see FAQ #20). But if the assembly had participated, then her statement might have the force of an action by the assembly, perhaps through general consent (p. 68 in your -In Brief; p. 54 - 55 in RONR). So, how was it agreed? (Watch out for the passive voice!)

See above.

The citation is RONR, 11th Ed, p. 244, lines 21 - 23.

...

Wy do I get singled out? Everybody else did the work.

Thank you for letting me know I should reply to each person individually. And thank you to all for their work and help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for letting me know I should reply to each person individually. And thank you to all for their work and help!

It's not so much making individual replies, so much as it was Trina's getting the situation and problem so focussed. (Dr Stackpole and Mr Novosielski and Guest Guest made characteristic salient points, but they didn't call for reply.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nancy N.
Gary c Tesser, on 22 June 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

. . . Guest Guest made characteristic salient points . . .

Characteristic?

What can you say? What a suck-up. He don't even know which Guest_Guest you are (and I wish you'd stop. Make something up, you won't be the first).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...