setting new standards outside of a meeting

[Guest sunflower sue]

Recently Our chapter had an event and in that event a new monthly meeting place has occurred. No notification or document occurred for this change. Is this allowed to take place.

[Richard Brown]

Sunflower Sue, I don't know about the others on this board, but I need a little more information about what happened in order to try to answer your question.  For example (just for starters), what do you mean by "a new monthly meeting place occurred"?   And it apparently happened at some kind of "event"?   That doesn't  sound legit, but we need more details.  Edited to add:  And we need to know if that "event" was an official meeting.  Or a party.  Or a trip to the zoo.

[Edgar Guest]

Recently Our chapter had an event and in that event a new monthly meeting place has occurred. No notification or document occurred for this change. Is this allowed to take place.

 

It depends on who has the authority to change the meeting place. If an individual (e.g. the president) has the authority, the decision can be made at any time. If a group (e.g. a board or a committee or the general membership) has the authority, the decision can only be made at a proper meeting of that group (not just "an event").

[Guest Guest]

This said group normally meets at a hotel each month. At our last meeting it was determined that we would not hold our March monthly meeting as we would be at an event that day. The next meeting would fall in April at our regular schedule. We always meet on the First Sunday of each month. At the event that day, not only was the day changed, but also the location of the next meeting to 40 miles away. The next meeting will now be at a home of a member and will not be posted on our website with her address for other guests etc to be able to attend.

[Edgar Guest]

At our last meeting it was determined that we would not hold our March monthly meeting as we would be at an event that day.

There's no provision in RONR for cancelling a regularly scheduled meeting.

 

At the event that day, not only was the day changed, but also the location of the next meeting to 40 miles away. The next meeting will now be at a home of a member and will not be posted on our website with her address for other guests etc to be able to attend.

This, too, was improper.

[Gary Novosielski]

There's no provision in RONR for cancelling a regularly scheduled meeting.

 

This, too, was improper.

 

Well, maybe not.  There's no provision for canceling it if no meeting intervenes.

 

But surely group that has the power to schedule meetings has the power to amend the previously adopted schedule.  In this case, since there is enough time in advance for the assembly to meet, it might be able to pass a motion to change the date of the next meeting or cancel it.

 

That's presuming that the assembly can easily set its own schedule.  We are told that "we always meet on the first Sunday", but we are not told why.  Was this schedule made as a standing rule?  Special rule of order?  Bylaws provision?  Accident?  Custom?  A lot depends on the answer.

 

As long as members are all provided with proper notice of the change, I don't see any facts that would make that improper, based on RONR, but there could be many reasons in the bylaws.

[Edgar Guest]

But surely group that has the power to schedule meetings has the power to amend the previously adopted schedule. 

 

But surely not at an event outside of a meeting.

[Guest Guest]

Can this then be voted about at a meeting in May as president will not be at the April meeting?

[Guest Guest]

Schedule has always been a Standing Rule.

[Edgar Guest]

Can this then be voted about at a meeting in May as president will not be at the April meeting?

A motion can be made at any regular meeting (or any special meeting called for that purpose) whether the president is present or not.

[Gary Novosielski]

But surely not at an event outside of a meeting.

 

 

Right, but we are told "At our last meeting it was determined that we would not hold our March monthly meeting".  So it was determined at a meeting.

[Gary Novosielski]

Can this then be voted about at a meeting in May as president will not be at the April meeting?

 

The president is not required to hold a meeting.  If you have a Vice President, the VP presides.  If you have neither, and no 2nd VP, you elect a president pro tem for the meeting, and proceed as normal.

 

Schedule has always been a Standing Rule.

That can be changed by a majority vote at any meeting.

[Guest Guest]

Any meeting but not an event correct.

[Guest sunflower sue]

Thank you.

[Edgar Guest]

Schedule has always been a Standing Rule.

 

That can be changed by a majority vote at any meeting.

 

Wouldn't they be amending something previously adopted?

[Edgar Guest]

The president is not required to hold a meeting.

 

The presence of the president is not required.

[Josh Martin]

Can this then be voted about at a meeting in May as president will not be at the April meeting?

Sure. Or at the April meeting.

Schedule has always been a Standing Rule.

A standing rule may be changed by a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, which requires a majority vote with previous notice, a 2/3 vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

Right, but we are told "At our last meeting it was determined that we would not hold our March monthly meeting". So it was determined at a meeting.

Yes, but we are also told "At the event that day, not only was the day changed, but also the location of the next meeting..." So it would seem that the decision to cancel the March meeting was made at a meeting (and it turns out this may well have been proper, since the schedule is set by a standing rule), but the decision to change the date and location of the April meeting was made outside of a meeting.

That can be changed by a majority vote at any meeting.

No, amending a standing rule requires a majority vote with notice, a 2/3 vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

Any meeting but not an event correct.

Yes.

[Edgar Guest]

Right, but we are told "At our last meeting it was determined that we would not hold our March monthly meeting".  So it was determined at a meeting.

 

 . .  it would seem that the decision to cancel the March meeting was made at a meeting (and it turns out this may well have been proper, since the schedule is set by a standing rule) . . . 

 

I think that was Mr. Novosielski's point. Though I doubt the "determination" to cancel the March meeting was done properly. I suspect they simply decided not to meet (as opposed to amending the schedule).

[Gary Novosielski]

Wouldn't they be amending something previously adopted?

Right.  Amending would require a majority with previous notice (or majority of the entire membership, or 2/3.)

 

It can be suspended by a plain ol' chicken-fried majority vote for the duration of a session.

 

I'm not sure if canceling the next meeting could be accomplished with a suspension, however.  I'd lean toward not.

[Richard Brown]

Right.  Amending would require a majority with previous notice (or majority of the entire membership, or 2/3.)

 

It can be suspended by a plain ol' chicken-fried majority vote for the duration of a session.

 

I'm not sure if canceling the next meeting could be accomplished with a suspension, however.  I'd lean toward not.

It's the last line of Gary's comment above that I'm curious about, too.  I tend to believe it cannot be done with a suspension of the rules, but I'm interested in what others think.  Comments?

[Edgar Guest]

It's the last line of Gary's comment above that I'm curious about, too.  I tend to believe it cannot be done with a suspension of the rules, but I'm interested in what others think.  Comments?

 

Mr. Novosielski leans toward not. Mr. Brown tends to believe not. I say not.

 

If a suspension of the rules lasts only until the end of the session (i.e. the meeting), how could it apply to the next meeting (i.e. session)?

 

What rule do you think is being suspended?

[Dan Honemann]

I'm not sure if canceling the next meeting could be accomplished with a suspension, however.  I'd lean toward not.

 

Then, as others have noted, you will be leaning in the right direction.

 

"When an assembly wishes to do something during a meeting that it cannot do without violating one or more of its regular rules, it can adopt a motion to Suspend the Rules interfering with the proposed action ..." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 260, ll. 19-22)

 

"The object of this motion is to suspend one or more rules applicable to the assembly—such as rules contained in the parliamentary authority, special rules of order, or standing rules**—that interfere with proposed action during a meeting." (p. 261, ll. 22-26)

[Guest Sunflower sue]

Ok an update on situation.

Our organization is to follow our national by laws, then Roberts rules of order and then common sense. This came from the national president.

Situation that happened is basically

Chapter was at an event.

At the event, meeting day and location was changed.

National said if the meeting was changing, then it needed to be posted for all members and public to attend.

Our chapters website stated on the front page meeting would be normal place and the national website still showed normal place to be held and normal meeting time.

I voiced my objection to the board and it went on blinded ears and suggested to have a committee meeting instead. No go and

Meeting occurred, at the new place and change of date. Minutes were taken, and now will be voted in at our next meeting. I was not present for this meeting which occurred outside of the norm.

At our May meeting I will be objecting to the acceptance of the minutes as it is against Roberts rules for the conduct of this meeting. Am I wrong?

[Edgar Guest]

Chapter was at an event.

 

No, "the Chapter" was not at an event. Chapter members were at an event. The Chapter can only act as a Chapter at a proper meeting of the Chapter.

 

At our May meeting I will be objecting to the acceptance of the minutes as it is against Roberts rules for the conduct of this meeting. Am I wrong?

The minutes have nothing to do with it. At least not directly. A point of order should be raised to the effect that the meeting was improper and that, therefore, any business conducted therein should be declared null and void (which, of course, would mean that there would be no minutes to approve).

[Guest Sunflowersue]

Thank you for your reply.