Special Meeting questions

[Louise]

I serve on a board. As per our bylaws, our president was handed a petition requesting a special meeting to discuss policy changes.

We have called the special meeting for a date when we are likely to get a good turnout to the meeting.

 

However, we have just discovered that the person who started the petition (and who is immediately - and negatively - affected by some of the policies in question) cannot be there. This person is upset (well, even more upset, actually) that we did not consult with them about the date first.

 

We did ensure the president and secretary would be available for the date that we chose, even though not every board member was available.

 

Did we mis-step? Should we have checked with this person? And if so, would we also have been obligated to check with the other individuals who signed the petition? (I'm not sure how we would ever find an agreeable date, if so.) I've searched RONR but haven't found a section relevant to this question.

 

Am I also correct that if the notice of meeting has been sent out (it has), we are obligated to hold the meeting, even if the person who started the petition cannot be there? If so, should we then hold a *second* special meeting when they can be present, or would that be out of order?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Special meetings can be called only as authorized in the bylaws (see RONR 11th ed., pp. 91-93). Do your rules require the person who started the petition to be there? RONR does not have such a requirement.

[Louise]

Yes, our bylaws authorize the calling of special meetings.

 

No, our rules say nothing about the person starting the petition having to be at the special meeting.

[bobby101]

While RONR is silent on this question, I would think that, at least as a courtesy and gesture of good will, that the President would have checked with the petitioner about his/her availability. Since the petitioner probably had to do a significant amount of work to develop the petition and develop support for the meeting, he/she should have been party to the decision on when the meeting was to be scheduled. And, while it's clear that you probably can't choose a date satisfactory to everyone, some flexibility--and input from the petitioner--should be considered, at least from my point of view.

[Dan Honemann]

I serve on a board. As per our bylaws, our president was handed a petition requesting a special meeting to discuss policy changes.

We have called the special meeting for a date when we are likely to get a good turnout to the meeting.

 

However, we have just discovered that the person who started the petition (and who is immediately - and negatively - affected by some of the policies in question) cannot be there. This person is upset (well, even more upset, actually) that we did not consult with them about the date first.

 

We did ensure the president and secretary would be available for the date that we chose, even though not every board member was available.

 

Did we mis-step? Should we have checked with this person? And if so, would we also have been obligated to check with the other individuals who signed the petition? (I'm not sure how we would ever find an agreeable date, if so.) I've searched RONR but haven't found a section relevant to this question.

 

Am I also correct that if the notice of meeting has been sent out (it has), we are obligated to hold the meeting, even if the person who started the petition cannot be there? If so, should we then hold a *second* special meeting when they can be present, or would that be out of order?

 

No rule in RONR has been violated. Yes, the meeting should be held. No, there is no requirement that another meeting be held, although the membership can decide to do so if it wishes.

[Timothy]

Nothing in RONR requires you to do something different than you did, but I can understand the person being upset.

[Richard Brown]

To elaborate just a bit on the comments by Mr. Huynh, Mr. Honemann and Mr. Fish, the assembly can, by majority vote, set an adjourned meeting for a date and time when the aggrieved member can be present.  That is not exactly the same thing as setting another special meeting.  The adjourned meeting can be set for later in the same day, the next day, the next week, or for any date prior to the next regular meeting.  The assembly can also authorize someone to read a written statement prepared by the aggrieved member. 

[Louise]

While RONR is silent on this question, I would think that, at least as a courtesy and gesture of good will, that the President would have checked with the petitioner about his/her availability. Since the petitioner probably had to do a significant amount of work to develop the petition and develop support for the meeting, he/she should have been party to the decision on when the meeting was to be scheduled. And, while it's clear that you probably can't choose a date satisfactory to everyone, some flexibility--and input from the petitioner--should be considered, at least from my point of view.

 

Our understanding was that the petitioner was going to be available for a meeting at the time for which it was called; clearly, we were mistaken (and rather surprised). We are feeling rather badly about this.

 

No rule in RONR has been violated. Yes, the meeting should be held. No, there is no requirement that another meeting be held, although the membership can decide to do so if it wishes.

 

Thank you.

 

Nothing in RONR requires you to do something different than you did, but I can understand the person being upset.

 

As do I.

 

To elaborate just a bit on the comments by Mr. Huynh, Mr. Honemann and Mr. Fish, the assembly can, by majority vote, set an adjourned meeting for a date and time when the aggrieved member can be present.  That is not exactly the same thing as setting another special meeting.  The adjourned meeting can be set for later in the same day, the next day, the next week, or for any date prior to the next regular meeting.  The assembly can also authorize someone to read a written statement prepared by the aggrieved member. 

 

I had thought of that possibility as well. However, I'm not sure how well that would go over with (at least some of) the general membership, since it would mean that some of those present at the time for which the meeting was originally called may not be able to be present for the "adjourned" meeting in the future, and then *they* may be upset, since they agree with current policy and don't want to see it changed.

 

Ah, a fine kettle of fish...

 

Thank you, all. I wish there were an easy solution that would make everyone happy.

 

[Louise]

Just a quick hypothetical follow-up question:

 

If we were not to have a quorum on the date of the special meeting, would we simply adjourn to a future date? (I'm assuming the meeting will still have to happen eventually, right?)

 

If so, we would be running into our next regular meeting. Could we adjourn the special meeting that lacked a quorum so that it immediately followed the next regular meeting, or would we need to have a certain amount of time between the two meetings? 

[Richard Brown]

If you do not have a quorum at the special meeting, you can adjourn the meeting until a future date and time, but it must take place prior to your next regular meeting.  It cannot be adjourned to a time beyond your next regular meeting.

 

But, why not  take this up at your next regular meeting if you are unable  to hold a special meeting before then?

[Josh Martin]

Just a quick hypothetical follow-up question:

 

If we were not to have a quorum on the date of the special meeting, would we simply adjourn to a future date? (I'm assuming the meeting will still have to happen eventually, right?)

 

If so, we would be running into our next regular meeting. Could we adjourn the special meeting that lacked a quorum so that it immediately followed the next regular meeting, or would we need to have a certain amount of time between the two meetings?

The meeting can be adjourned to a future date, but does not have to be. A meeting happens even if no quorum is present. It is in order to postpone the special meeting to immediately following the next regular meeting, but why bother? Just adjourn the special meeting and do whatever you needed to do at the regular meeting.

If you do not have a quorum at the special meeting, you can adjourn the meeting until a future date and time, but it must take place prior to your next regular meeting.  It cannot be adjourned to a time beyond your next regular meeting.

 

But, why not  take this up at your next regular meeting if you are unable  to hold a special meeting before then?

A regular meeting cannot be adjourned to a date beyond the next regular meeting. This restriction does not apply to special meetings. Generally speaking, however, I concur that it would be simpler to just adjourn the meeting and take up the business at the regular meeting.

[Shmuel Gerber]

A regular meeting cannot be adjourned to a date beyond the next regular meeting. This restriction does not apply to special meetings.

 

That's news to me. What are you basing it on?

[Shmuel Gerber]

That's news to me. What are you basing it on?

 

By the way, that was a genuine question, as I am interested in whether there is someplace in RONR that seems to suggest a special meeting may be adjourned to a time after the next regular meeting. The text on pages 93-94 specifically says, "If a regular meeting or a special meeting is unable to complete its work, an adjourned meeting can be scheduled for later the same day or some other convenient time before the next regular meeting, by the adoption (as applicable) of a main or a privileged motion to fix the time to which to adjourn, or a main motion to adjourn until the specified time (see 21, 22)."

[Gary Novosielski]

It has been my understanding that no adjourned meeting may be set beyond the next regular meeting, whether adjourned from a regular or special meeting.

[Richard Brown]

It has been my understanding that no adjourned meeting may be set beyond the next regular meeting, whether adjourned from a regular or special meeting.

That is my understanding, too.  I believe, but I'm not certain, that it was Mr. Honemann who pointed that out to me several months ago when I had made a comment that wasn't clear that the adjourned meeting had to be set for a date before the next regular meeting.  I'll try to search for it later. 

[Richard Brown]

It has been my understanding that no adjourned meeting may be set beyond the next regular meeting, whether adjourned from a regular or special meeting.

 

That is my understanding, too.  I believe, but I'm not certain, that it was Mr. Honemann who pointed that out to me several months ago when I had made a comment that wasn't clear that the adjourned meeting had to be set for a date before the next regular meeting.  I'll try to search for it later. 

I found it.  It was indeed Mr. Honemann.  See his comment at post # 4 in this thread:  http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/24120-quorum/

[Louise]

Thank you for all of the input.

 

I think I much prefer the idea of including the subject matter in the next regular meeting (if necessary) rather than having two meetings in a two- or three-week period.

 

Is there a specific reference in RONR that states the date for an adjourned meeting cannot be set beyond the date of the next regular meeting?

[jstackpo]

Sure, but it is the time, not the date of the next regular meeting, that sets the upper limit to when the adjourned meeting may be fixed  --  p. 244.

 

I don't know why you would want to, but you could set the adjourned meeting to meet earlier on the same day as the next regular meeting. 

[George Mervosh]

That's news to me. What are you basing it on?

 

I hope he finds it because I'll confess that at first blush I thought the same thing Josh did.  However, as you've noted, the book is crystal clear.

[Louise]

Thank you again. Pages 93-94 and 244. Very helpful.

 

I expect this won't be an issue, but I'd rather be prepared and know what to do before it happens, rather than have to scramble to figure out what to do on the fly, or find out *afterwards* that we did it all wrong. (Lord knows that's happened before...)