Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Can Chairman adjourn a meeting prematurely?


Guest Don Shepherd

Recommended Posts

If a meeting needs to be ajourned before the agenda is completed due to 1)time constraints or 2) inappropriate conduct by some of the participants does the Chairman have the power to end the meeting - if not wht action needs to happen?

No. A motion to Adjourn is required. In the general case, this motion is undebatable and requires a majority vote for adoption.

...unless by "time constraints" you mean that the assembly has already scheduled a time for adjournment and that time has been reached. The chair could declare the meeting adjourned on his own in that case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) That depends on what you mean by "time constraints." The Chair can't unilaterally Adjourn the meeting because he wants to get home before Survivor starts. However, if the agenda or program has a specific time to Adjourn and that time has been reached the Chair can note that fact and declare the meeting Adjourned (though the assembly can decide to keep on going by setting aside the orders of the day). See RONR pp. 240-241.

2) Unless conditions are so dangerous that the Chair would be putting people's safety at risk by taking the time to take a vote to Adjourn the Chair can't Adjourn the meeting just because folks are acting up (RONR p. 86 ll. 26-30). However, the Chair should be familiar with RONR pp. 644-649 for how to deal with disruptive members and nonmembers.

If the Chair doesn't have the authority to unilaterally Adjourn the meeting he will need to get someone to make the motion and the assembly would need to adopt the motion. Majority rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone correct me if I'm wrong--I don't have RONR with me at the office--but I believe the chair is allowed to declare a meeting adjourned by unanimous consent. If it's obvious there is no further business, the chair doesn't have to wait for, or ask for a motion to adjourn. Of course, if any member objects, this no longer meets the criteria for unanimous consent, and the meeting continues.

This would apply indirectly in the OP's case by the simple fact that any member could object to the chair's declaration in order to nullify the improperly called adjournment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, if there is no further business the Chair can declare the meeting Adjourned with unanimous consent. However, that wouldn't apply to this case because the OP said that the agenda wasn't completed yet.

Then we agree. :)

There are only a few scenarios under which the chair can declare a meeting adjourned.

1. A motion was made, seconded, and passed to adjourn. That was not done in the OP's scenario.

2. The chair believes bodily harm may come to the attendees if the meeting continues. That was not the case.

3. The chair believes there is no further business, and declares the meeting adjourned by unanimous consent. We must assume (wink, wink) that this is what the chair is doing, since it is the only option that fits.

I was taking a circuitous route to show that the only action necessary to overcome the incorrect declaration of adjournment in the OP's scenario is for a single member to object. This is simple, doesn't require any parliamentary acrobatics, and saves face for the chair since it doesn't result in any kind of accusation of misconduct or mistake.

Edit: I'm assuming that by "agenda" the original poster meant "order of business" and not an agenda in the parliamentary sense. If there actually is a binding agenda, a point of order might be in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. The chair believes there is no further business, and declares the meeting adjourned by unanimous consent. We must assume (wink, wink) that this is what the chair is doing, since it is the only option that fits.

The facts presented suggest that this option doesn't really fit, since the original poster states that the agenda was not completed.

You're also missing "4. The assembly has previously scheduled a time for adjournment," and that might fit, due to the reference to "time constraints."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. The chair believes there is no further business, and declares the meeting adjourned by unanimous consent. We must assume (wink, wink) that this is what the chair is doing, since it is the only option that fits.

No, we need not assume (wink wink) anything of the kind, since other assumptions fit the facts better. (E.g., that the chair is unfamiliar with the rules or does not know how to deal with indecorous members.)

Since the agenda has not been completed, the chair has no basis to believe that all business has been completed, and so may not declare the meeting adjourned on that basis.

RONR contains various provisions for amending or suspending the rules, but none for winking at them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest_blepharospasm_* seems to understand what I was trying, so inelegantly, to convey. I wasn't suggesting that any rules should be suspended, or that the chair in question was actually correct in his actions. I was merely trying to provide a scenario by which a member could correct the mistake without being accusatory: Raising a point of order would seem to accuse the chair of being ignorant of the rules, or willfully disregarding them. That is most likely the truth, but stating it could lead to a contentious situation. By "assuming" the chair thought there was no further business, and gently objecting to the adjournment, the same result could be achieved with a minimum of embarrassment.

Since we don't know the full details (Was there an actual Agenda, or just an agenda in the colloquial sense?), my suggestion might be inapplicable, as I stated previously.

And I've now taken this thread too far afield, so I will shut up now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...