Conflict of articles

[Timothy]

This is in only one document. Two week notice has been sent out and the date will be after the fixed date set in the bylaws. What if this date is challenged as not following the bylaws?

That may depend on what form the challenge takes. It is one thing if someone shows up at the meeting with the later date to challenge the meeting, thus legitimizing the meeting and something very different if enough people show up at a meeting on the earlier date and elect new officers.

[Guest Kevin]

There will only be one meeting. The fixed date meeting was cancelled.

[Josh Martin]

This is in only one document. Two week notice has been sent out and the date will be after the fixed date set in the bylaws. What if this date is challenged as not following the bylaws?

 

The chair will rule on the Point of Order, subject to Appeal. It will ultimately be up to the assembly to interpret its own bylaws, and therefore, to determine whether the meeting is valid.

 

If the assembly ultimately determines that the meeting is valid, there may still be other consequences, such as disciplinary action against those who failed to send out the notice for the correct meeting date in time.

 

That may depend on what form the challenge takes. It is one thing if someone shows up at the meeting with the later date to challenge the meeting, thus legitimizing the meeting and something very different if enough people show up at a meeting on the earlier date and elect new officers.

 

The fact that members show up at the meeting and challenge its validity does not "legitimize" it.

 

There will only be one meeting. The fixed date meeting was cancelled.

 

Well, I would expect some questions about how whoever did this had the authority to cancel a meeting scheduled in the bylaws.

[Timothy]

There will only be one meeting. The fixed date meeting was cancelled.

 

Not that I would say this is the best way to handle the situation, but if people wanted to make an issue of it, people could show up at the first date whether someone sent out a notice that the meeting was canceled or not. If there were sufficient people there to conduct business, they could make the claim that the meeting they held was the official meeting and the rescheduled meeting was not authorized. They could vote to send notice to the membership that the second meeting wasn't authorized and would not be held. For people to hold the second meeting, they would have to support the claim that the actions in the first meeting were invalid. Since the bylaws specify the date of the meeting, it would be difficult to say that meeting was invalid unless the bylaws also provide some means by which that meeting can be canceled or postponed (perhaps with two weeks notice?).

[Josh Martin]

Since the bylaws specify the date of the meeting, it would be difficult to say that meeting was invalid unless the bylaws also provide some means by which that meeting can be canceled or postponed (perhaps with two weeks notice?).

 

Since the bylaws also specify that notice of the meeting must be sent two weeks in advance and this was not done, I don't think it would be that difficult.

[Timothy]

Since the bylaws also specify that notice of the meeting must be sent two weeks in advance and this was not done, I don't think it would be that difficult.

 

And yet, there have been thirty posts on this forum without a clear answer. Essentially, if the organization meets at the time specified in the bylaws, even though a cancelation has been sent out, someone would have to prove that the organization was wrong to do so, before the second meeting could be considered valid.

[Guest Nancy N.]

One thing I think we can agree on is that the alleged cancellation has no validity or standing and can be disregarded, except to the extent that it is an acknowledgement that the alleged cancellation is cancelling a meeting that has no validity to start with.

 

Uh oh.

[Timothy]

One thing I think we can agree on is that the alleged cancellation has no validity or standing and can be disregarded, except to the extent that it is an acknowledgement that the alleged cancellation is cancelling a meeting that has no validity to start with.

 

Uh oh.

 

If the meeting it is canceling has no validity, then it can't be canceled because it was never officially scheduled to begin with. But if it was officially scheduled and valid, then the invalid cancelation would have no effect and the meeting should occur on the date specified in the bylaws.

[Josh Martin]

One thing I think we can agree on is that the alleged cancellation has no validity or standing and can be disregarded, except to the extent that it is an acknowledgement that the alleged cancellation is cancelling a meeting that has no validity to start with.

 

Uh oh.

 

The meeting should be presumed to be valid unless and until the assembly determines otherwise, at a meeting.

[Guest Edgar]

And yet, there have been thirty posts on this forum without a clear answer.

What's not clear about this:

 

No, the two articles don't "violate" each other. It's simply too late to obey both rules. Better luck next month (or whenever the next meeting is scheduled).

 

 

[Timothy]

What's not clear about this:...

 

 

No, the two articles don't "violate" each other. It's simply too late to obey both rules. Better luck next month (or whenever the next meeting is scheduled).

 

 

I agree that the two articles don't violate each other. What isn't clear is that the failure to abide by the requirement in the bylaws to give two weeks notice authorizes (presumeably the same person) to violate the bylaws by holding the meeting at a different date. Two wrongs don't make a right, sort of thing. So, after however many posts we are up to, we still don't have agreement. Just like I believe I could make a case for the original meeting date to be valid, if people show up at the original meeting date and pass a resolution that invalidates the second meeting (assuming someone has the authority to call such a meeting to begin with), they could make the case that their action was valid and whatever happens at the second meeting is not.

[Josh Martin]

I agree that the two articles don't violate each other. What isn't clear is that the failure to abide by the requirement in the bylaws to give two weeks notice authorizes (presumeably the same person) to violate the bylaws by holding the meeting at a different date. Two wrongs don't make a right, sort of thing. So, after however many posts we are up to, we still don't have agreement. Just like I believe I could make a case for the original meeting date to be valid, if people show up at the original meeting date and pass a resolution that invalidates the second meeting (assuming someone has the authority to call such a meeting to begin with), they could make the case that their action was valid and whatever happens at the second meeting is not.

 

Another possibility is that both meetings are invalid, since neither satisfies the requirements in the bylaws.

[George Mervosh]

And yet, there have been thirty posts on this forum without a clear answer.

 

After a dozen or so years you'll get used to it. 

[Timothy]

Another possibility is that both meetings are invalid, since neither satisfies the requirements in the bylaws.

 

That's true, in which case it might require them to wait a year before they can have a valid meeting.

 

After a dozen or so years you'll get used to it. 

 

I've got not problem with it. It wouldn't be much fun if everything had a clear answer.

[Guest Kevin]

Bylaws didn't cause the problem. Notification did.  Should an attachment be added if this happens in the future then an extra 2 weeks should be added to the fixed date so it conforms. This year can happen if the call a special meeting to take place of the annual meeting.... 

[Timothy]

Bylaws didn't cause the problem. Notification did.  Should an attachment be added if this happens in the future then an extra 2 weeks should be added to the fixed date so it conforms. This year can happen if the call a special meeting to take place of the annual meeting.... 

 

It is your organization that has decided to interpret the bylaws in such a way that failing to provide 2 weeks notice makes it impossible to meet at the scheduled time. How can anyone here be expected to answer what needs to be changed in your bylaws so the interpretation of your organization doesn't require you to cancel the annual meeting? 

 

My guess is that what you ought to do is strike the requirement for two weeks notice. If someone can fail to give two weeks notice once, they could do it again, and again. 

 

Alternatively, you could rewrite the bylaws so that, no more than 50 weeks after the meeting, a notice is sent. By what seems to be the organization's interpretation, this would invalid the previous meeting, if the secretary forgot to do it, but the next meeting could go on as scheduled.

[Guest Kevin]

Thank You.  Tim , 40 tries and still no answer. run a meeting  coming up. notice has happened. Be happy and do it. I'm done. Put in enough time

[Guest Edgar]

40 tries and still no answer.

 

Really? No answer?

[Josh Martin]

Thank You.  Tim , 40 tries and still no answer. run a meeting  coming up. notice has happened. Be happy and do it. I'm done. Put in enough time

 

I'm sorry that we were unable to provide a definitive answer regarding customized rules that no one here has seen. We'll try harder next time.

 

I'm in agreement with Tim that the best solution is to strike the requirement for notice from the bylaws altogether. Why require notice if the date of the meeting is specified in the bylaws and the meeting is always held on the same date? You can certainly still send notice as a courtesy, but if it is not required, failure to send the notice on time will not call into question the validity of the meeting.

 

Alternately, if you feel that people do need notice for a meeting they should have known about anyway, I'd include a provision which allows somebody to reschedule the meeting to a later date if notice is not sent on time, so that adequate notice may be sent. With such a provision, rescheduling the meeting won't call the validity of that into question.

[Gary c Tesser]

 

Really? No answer?

 

Of course not.  Don't take it to heart.  He's young yet.