Buddy Posted September 20, 2012 at 06:14 PM Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 at 06:14 PM Our By-laws and Constitution state only our EB President or Business Manager may call a special meeting. What are RONR regarding what can be discussed at this type of meeting? How much notice needs to be given to call a special meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted September 20, 2012 at 06:35 PM Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 at 06:35 PM Our By-laws and Constitution state only our EB President or Business Manager may call a special meeting. What are RONR regarding what can be discussed at this type of meeting? Unless your bylaws say otherwise any type of business that can be conducted at a regular meeting can be conducted at a Special Meeting. However, only what is included in the call of the Special Meeting can be validly conducted.How much notice needs to be given to call a special meeting?Your bylaws should specify that. See RONR pp. 91-93. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted September 22, 2012 at 01:46 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 at 01:46 PM How much notice needs to be given to call a special meeting?Your bylaws should specify that. See RONR pp. 91-93.And if they don't the standard is a "reasonable" amount of time. That's not very specific, but if it becomes an issue, that's the standard that needs to be met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted September 22, 2012 at 02:57 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 at 02:57 PM And if they don't the standard is a "reasonable" amount of time. That's not very specific, but if it becomes an issue, that's the standard that needs to be met.If the standard is a "reasonable" amount of time would a Point of Order that there wasn't a reasonable amount of time given need to be timely (raised as soon as the Special Meeting is called to order) or could it be raised later as a p. 251(e) violation? I believe I would argue that it would need to be timely because "reasonable" is a subjective term as opposed to a specific number. If the bylaws require 10 days notice and only 8 was given a member could concretely point to the call and show it was issued too late. On the other hand, if the "reasonable" standard is in use the members at the Special Meeting very well may consider the amount of notice given to be reasonable and proceed on good faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted September 22, 2012 at 03:12 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 at 03:12 PM On the other hand, if the "reasonable" standard is in use the members at the Special Meeting very well may consider the amount of notice given to be reasonable and proceed on good faith.Yes, the members at the meeting might conclude the notice was reasonable but what about the members who, because the notice wasn't reasonable, failed to attend?Let's assume, as an example, a 24-hour notice which results in the attendance of the barest of quorums (let's say ten percent of the membership). Let's further assume that the other 90% didn't even get the notice until after the meeting took place. Can the 10% determine that the notice was reasonable leaving no recourse for the 90%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted September 22, 2012 at 03:50 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 at 03:50 PM Let's assume, as an example, a 24-hour notice which results in the attendance of the barest of quorums (let's say ten percent of the membership). Let's further assume that the other 90% didn't even get the notice until after the meeting took place. Can the 10% determine that the notice was reasonable leaving no recourse for the 90%?I would say yes they can. If the organization decided to have a "reasonable" notice standard in the bylaws they are assuming the risk that something like this might happen. If the rest of the members believe that this 10% erred in considering the 24 hour notice reasonable they have options available to them such as Rescinding/Amending what was done and they can censure (or worse) the 10% for their actions. In either case hopefully this would get them to amend the bylaws to specify a concrete notice requirement rather than a subjective one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 22, 2012 at 06:01 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 at 06:01 PM I wouldn't have thought so, but Chris has convinced me again.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted September 22, 2012 at 07:52 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 at 07:52 PM If the standard is a "reasonable" amount of time would a Point of Order that there wasn't a reasonable amount of time given need to be timely (raised as soon as the Special Meeting is called to order) or could it be raised later as a p. 251(e) violation?I believe I would argue that it would need to be timely because "reasonable" is a subjective term as opposed to a specific number. If the bylaws require 10 days notice and only 8 was given a member could concretely point to the call and show it was issued too late. On the other hand, if the "reasonable" standard is in use the members at the Special Meeting very well may consider the amount of notice given to be reasonable and proceed on good faith.Chris, I do indeed believe a point of order regarding improper notice of a special meeting can be made at a later time, in this case, specifically, if the notice given wasn't given in a reasonable timeframe. Why? Because the absentees whose rights might have been violated because they weren't given notice of the meeting in a reasonable timeframe, aren't there to raise a timely point of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted September 23, 2012 at 03:29 PM Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 at 03:29 PM I agree with George. But the obvious compromise between the views expressed above is that the Point of Order does not need to be made at the time of the violation, but must be made within a reasonable time thereafter.And guess who decides whether that later time is reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Britton Posted September 23, 2012 at 03:42 PM Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 at 03:42 PM I agree with George. But the obvious compromise between the views expressed above is that the Point of Order does not need to be made at the time of the violation, but must be made within a reasonable time thereafter.And guess who decides whether that later time is reasonable. The chair, subject to appeal? Perhaps, if the society is incorporated, a statute would be applicable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted September 23, 2012 at 05:40 PM Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 at 05:40 PM The chair, subject to appeal? Perhaps, if the society is incorporated, a statute would be applicable?Ultimately, it would be the members at the meeting when the Point of Order is raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.