Re-convening a meeting

[Guest Edward]

What is the vote required to re-convene a meeting of a body? 

[jstackpo]

You can't do it.

 

One a meeting is (properly) adjourned, that's it.    (One very rare exception is on p. 240.)

 

If the bylaws allow it, a special meeting can be called for later on.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

What is the vote required to re-convene a meeting of a body? 

 

What is meant by "re-convene"? Are you trying to set up another meeting? What type of body is this?

[Edgar Guest]

What is the vote required to re-convene a meeting of a body? 

 

Since voting can only take place at a meeting, there's no practical way to vote to "re-convene" a meeting that's over. But, as Mr. Huynh suggested, perhaps you mean something different by "re-convene"?

[Transpower]

If the meeting was recessed, then (at the appropriate time) the chair simply calls the meeting back to order.  Or if the meeting was adjourned to another meeting (a continuation, really), using the motion "To Fix the Time to Adjourn," then the chair calls the meeting to order at the agreed upon day and time.

[Gary Novosielski]

What is the vote required to re-convene a meeting of a body? 

Not sure what you mean, but it probably doesn't matter. If the meeting isn't already convened, how are you going to vote on anything?

[Dan Honemann]

If the meeting was recessed, then (at the appropriate time) the chair simply calls the meeting back to order.  Or if the meeting was adjourned to another meeting (a continuation, really), using the motion "To Fix the Time to Adjourn," then the chair calls the meeting to order at the agreed upon day and time.

 

I think you mean to refer to a motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn.

[Guest Ed]

It was a committee of our organization's annual convention.  They met on the first day of the convention and voted to take a particular action, without knowing all of the facts.  The facts later came to light and over half of the committee members  signed a petition to re-convene.  However, the petition was not signed by 2/3 of the committee members and the chair was not among those who signed the petition (he was against the second meeting).  A second meeting was then held where the action taken during the first meeting was undone and new action was taken. 

 

Under these circumstances, was the second meeting properly re-convened?   

 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

The action taken may be valid if it is done at a properly called meeting at which a quorum is present.

 

Do your rules require a petition to be signed by 2/3 of the committee in order to call a committee meeting? That seems like a high threshold to me. I have seen committee meetings being called by the chair or by any two of its members. Do your rules require something else?

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . was the second meeting properly re-convened?   

 

No. It may (or may not) have been properly convened (see Mr. Huynh's questions) but it certainly wasn't re-convened.

[Rev Ed]

If the meeting was recessed, then (at the appropriate time) the chair simply calls the meeting back to order. 

 

At the appropriate time or when the Chairman sees that people are back from the recess.  The group does not have to set a specific amountof time for the recess.

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . or when the Chairman sees that people are back from the recess.

 

Should the chair wait until all members are back? What if some aren't coming back. When only enough members (i.e. a quorum) are back?

 

If the length of the recess hasn't been specified (e.g. ten minutes), I'd recommend that no member leave the room.

 

Though it's clear that this topic is not about a recess.

[Josh Martin]

It was a committee of our organization's annual convention. They met on the first day of the convention and voted to take a particular action, without knowing all of the facts. The facts later came to light and over half of the committee members signed a petition to re-convene. However, the petition was not signed by 2/3 of the committee members and the chair was not among those who signed the petition (he was against the second meeting). A second meeting was then held where the action taken during the first meeting was undone and new action was taken.

Under these circumstances, was the second meeting properly re-convened?

As noted previously, a meeting cannot be "reconvened." If anything, this was a new meeting of the committee. So far as RONR is concerned, a committee meeting may be called by the chair or by any two members of the committee. So unless your organization's rules provide otherwise, it appears that the second meeting was properly called.

[Richard Brown]

As noted previously, a meeting cannot be "reconvened." If anything, this was a new meeting of the committee. So far as RONR is concerned, a committee meeting may be called by the chair or by any two members of the committee. So unless your organization's rules provide otherwise, it appears that the second meeting was properly called.

Wouldn't the amount of notice.... or lack thereof.... to the other members of the committee be a factor in determining that the second meeting was legitimate?  RONR requires reasonable notice.  Were all members of the committee given notice?  Wouldn't such notice be required?  What about the length of notice?   Did they "re-convent" a few minutes or even a few hours later, but after several committee members had left?  

 

I think the second meeting was not properly called if only half or two thirds of the members even knew about it and it was held on only a few minutes' or a few hours' notice.

 

Unless I missed it, we haven't been given any information on how much time elapsed between the two meetings or as to the type and amount of notice given or to whom it was given.

[Josh Martin]

Wouldn't the amount of notice.... or lack thereof.... to the other members of the committee be a factor in determining that the second meeting was legitimate? RONR requires reasonable notice. Were all members of the committee given notice? Wouldn't such notice be required? What about the length of notice? Did they "re-convent" a few minutes or even a few hours later, but after several committee members had left?

I think the second meeting was not properly called if only half or two thirds of the members even knew about it and it was held on only a few minutes' or a few hours' notice.

Unless I missed it, we haven't been given any information on how much time elapsed between the two meetings or as to the type and amount of notice given or to whom it was given.

Well, let me rephrase my earlier answer. As of yet, no facts have been provided which would suggest that the meeting was not properly called. Certainly the situation may change if the OP provides additional facts.