Guest unsure Posted August 3, 2012 at 08:24 AM Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 at 08:24 AM During a Special Executive Closed meeting, called for and noticed as a meeting with the auditor, a motion to remove/replace the chair was forced through. Our Bylaws state "Only the order of business that caused the meeting to be called will be discussed provided a quorum is present."My question is: Is the action taken valid since there was no notice given? If not, what steps should be taken now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted August 3, 2012 at 10:10 AM Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 at 10:10 AM Not valid. Raise a point of order at the next meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted August 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM During a Special Executive Closed meeting, called for and noticed as a meeting with the auditor, a motion to remove/replace the chair was forced through. Our Bylaws state "Only the order of business that caused the meeting to be called will be discussed provided a quorum is present."My question is: Is the action taken valid since there was no notice given? If not, what steps should be taken now?Under RONR, this is permissible, since it is a question of privilege related to the conduct of the meeting. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 93, ll. 5-8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted August 3, 2012 at 11:03 AM Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 at 11:03 AM When I read ...a motion to remove/replace the chair was forced through...I took it to mean they threw the chair out for good and replaced him, not just for this meeting, but from this point forward.Then I read Tim's response and I see it can maybe mean just for that meeting.Now my question is does the provision Tim mentions only apply to the removal being confined to that meeting? I'm thinking yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted August 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM I took it to mean they threw the chair out for good and replaced him, not just for this meeting, but from this point forward.Then I read Tim's response and I see it can maybe mean just for that meeting.Now my question is does the provision Tim mentions only apply to the removal being confined to that meeting? I'm thinking yes.You have to think of the absentees who are protected by the fact that business is limited to that mentioned in the call. While temporarily replacing the chair for that meeting has no effect on the absentees, losing their permanent presiding officer would. Also, filling a vacancy in office requires notice.In other words, you were thinking rightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted August 3, 2012 at 11:26 AM Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 at 11:26 AM Hooray! One for me!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted August 3, 2012 at 11:34 AM Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 at 11:34 AM Hooray! One for me!!Insert "more" after "one." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted August 3, 2012 at 03:30 PM Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 at 03:30 PM Yes, the motion to replace the Chair was out of order, unless it was only for that one meeting. If you now have a new full-time Chair, then the motion is out of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest unsure Posted August 3, 2012 at 05:31 PM Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 at 05:31 PM Thank everyone. I apologize for not making it clearer that the action was meant to replace the Chair for the rest of the term. Also we did have one absent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.