Refuse to adjourn a meeting by the chairman. Is he liable for this action if questioned in the court of law?

[Guest nicky]

The rules provided that the chairman may adjourn a meeting when so requested by majority of members present. At a meeting called to decide on very urgent matters the majority of members present requested an adjournment.However,the chairman refuse to adjourn as he believes that it is most important to continue the meeting Therefore,i would like to know whether his action may be upheld if questioned in a court of law.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Three points, to start with:

1. We don't discuss the law on this, the Robert's Rules Website Forum (RONR MB), the world's premiere Internet parliamentary website. See the introductory pages that you had to go through before posting your question.

2. Your organization's rules depart substantially (at least superficially) from Robert's Rules's. According to RONR, adjournment is generally accomplished by a member's making a motion to adjourn, the assembly voting to adjourn, and the chairman then being required to declare the meeting adjourned (with more steps, and some exceptions). He can't force the meeting to continue in the face of the majority's wanting to end the meeting.

2a. He can, as can any member, inform the assembly of business that he believes should be dealt with before adjourning. If I read p. 239 - 240 correctly, he must do this before the vote is taken. The assembly can then decide to vote against adjourning -- or in favor, if it so chooses.

Maybe only 2 1/2 points.

capcha try 2.

[Tim Wynn]

The rules provided that the chairman may adjourn a meeting when so requested by majority of members present. At a meeting called to decide on very urgent matters the majority of members present requested an adjournment.However,the chairman refuse to adjourn as he believes that it is most important to continue the meeting

According to RONR, a majority should not be forced to continue in session substantially longer than it desires. So, a motion to adjourn requires nothing more than a majority vote for adoption.

If your rule actually deviates from this principle, it is probably ill advised.

Perhaps a different result would have been obtained, if the chair put the question as "those in favor of requesting an adjournment, please leave."

Therefore,i would like to know whether his action may be upheld if questioned in a court of law.

Only the particular court of law would be able to provide that answer. However, you could consult an attorney or psychic.

[Guest Edgar]

The rules provided that the chairman may adjourn a meeting when so requested by majority of members present.

No one here has read your rules and all you've provided is a brief paraphrase. If they indeed say "may adjourn" and not "must" (or "shall") adjourn, then the rule doesn't have much teeth. In other words, it would seem to leave the "requested" adjournment at the discretion of the chair.

So what you'll need to do is carefully examine the rule in question. And any other applicable rules. Then you, along with the other members, can try to figure out what it means. We can't do that here.

35JR36

[Tim Wynn]

No one here has read your rules and all you've provided is a brief paraphrase. If they indeed say "may adjourn" and not "must" (or "shall") adjourn, then the rule doesn't have much teeth. In other

So what you'll need to do is carefully examine the rule in question. And any other applicable rules. Then you, along with the other members, can try to figure out what it means. We can't do that here.

35JR36

And then remove the rule completely, so that RONR will apply without obstruction. That way, we'll be of much more help.

[George Mervosh]

And then remove the rule completely, so that RONR will apply without obstruction. That way, we'll be of much more help.

Obstructing a Bamm Bamm http://robertsrules....time-to-recess/ (post 15) is never advisable.

[rthib]

As for law, talk to a lawyer.

But if I were asked my opinion:

Chairs don't pass motions, so if a meeting continued and a motion was made and then passed by a majority of members, one could easily argue that he followed the will of the members (and if nothing passed then who cares).

If no one objected to not adjourning (RONR point of order) and no one challenged the ruling of the chair that the meeting must continue, then again members messed up.

But judges often rule that the sky is pink and right is wrong, so who knows.

Talk to a lawyer, but most will tell you to figure it out yourself and it is up to the membership to decide what it want to do.

From a RONR, if you feel something was passed that needs to be corrected, RONR has lots of remedies that do not require going to court.