Should an illegal meeting be called to order?

[Sean Hunt]

I don't think he should formally call the meeting to order, no. Perhaps my post was besides the point, then.

[Timothy]

By the way, you can't call a "gathering" to order.

 

Sure you can. Haven't you been to a wedding reception or another gathering where people were milling around talking when someone decides they want to make a speech? They whistle loudly, yell, or bang on a glass to get the attention of the crowd. The crowd moves from chaos to order, so they have been called to order.

 

 

So if you were president, and it was obvious to you that this so-called "meeting" was illegitimate, you would still call this so-called "meeting" to order? Why?

 

If I were at this so-called "meeting," I would call it to order for the purpose of informing those who had gathered that we would be unable to conduct business and that they should go home. The same thing could be accomplished without calling them to order, but that would imply that the message was passed from one person to the next can someone people might not understand why everyone started walking out. Better to call those gathered to order and tell everyone at the same time.

[Edgar Guest]

The crowd moves from chaos to order, so they have been called to order.

 

Better to call those gathered to order and tell everyone at the same time.

 

Calling wedding guests or some other gathering of people "to order" is not the same thing as calling a meeting to order.

 

In any case, the question, "Should an illegal meeting be called to order?" presupposes that the meeting is illegal. So the answer is still "no".

 

I'd even go so far as to argue that a illegal meeting can't be properly called to order. That's putting lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig.

[Timothy]

Calling wedding guests or some other gathering of people "to order" is not the same thing as calling a meeting to order.

 

In any case, the question, "Should an illegal meeting be called to order?" presupposes that the meeting is illegal. So the answer is still "no".

 

I'd even go so far as to argue that a illegal meeting can't be properly called to order. That's putting lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig.

 

I think you're splitting hairs that it makes no sense to split. But aren't we kind of saying the same thing? With any gathering in which people listen to one speaker, there is going to be some action that brings the group to order, but that doesn't mean that the group is can conduct business. You stated this by saying that an illegal meeting can't be called to order. I'm saying that it can be called to order, but the call to order does nothing other than inform the group that it is time to focus their attention on one person. In both cases, business cannot be conducted at an illegal meeting.

[George Mervosh]

So no one agrees with what Mr. Honemann said in post #7?

[Timothy]

So no one agrees with what Mr. Honemann said in post #7?

 

I saw nothing wrong with what he said.

[J. J.]

So no one agrees with what Mr. Honemann said in post #7?

 

 

I think there is a a partial agreement, though I would advise the chair to call the meeting to order.  How I view the issue is slightly different.

 

First, I would note that inadequate notice would be a breach of a continuing nature, assuming there are absentees, so a point of order could be raised at a future meeting.  I'm not seeing this making too much of a difference.   

 

Second, I would note that if the notice was proper and a quorum did not attend, the substantive motions adopted at this meeting would be invalid and subject to a point of order at a future point.  In such cases, it is in order for chair to call the meeting to order, if only to rule that business could not be conducted, due to a lack of a quorum.

 

Third, while there can be cases where it is unambiguously clear that notice is invalid, there can also be cases that are ambiguous.  To say that the chair should not call the meeting to order might take the ability to raise a legitimate appeal away from the assembly.  The chair may properly rule that the notice is improper and the meeting is void, and may properly refuse to entertain the appeal, there is still a method for the assembly to decide.

 

I would advise the chair to call the meeting to order, and immediately rule that there was inadequate notice and that any substantive motion adopted would be void.  In that way, only an appeal (possibly from the floor) of this decision would determine if the meeting would continue.  In that respect, it would remove the onus of this decision from the chair, and place it squarely on the members assembled.  The chair's twin duties to preside over the meeting and enforce the rules would be preserved.

[George Mervosh]

I would advise the chair to call the meeting to order, and immediately rule that there was inadequate notice and that any substantive motion adopted would be void.  In that way, only an appeal (possibly from the floor) of this decision would determine if the meeting would continue.  In that respect, it would remove the onus of this decision from the chair, and place it squarely on the members assembled.  The chair's twin duties to preside over the meeting and enforce the rules would be preserved.

 

I agree with the gist of this.

[Guest Geoff Kahan]

Related question, this happened to us last week.

By-laws say special board meeting must be noticed by personal contact to each of the 15 board members at least 48 hours in advance.

The President sent an email to the group 72 hours ahead, and then proceeded to call each member by phone.  The 15th member did not get the call until 24 hours before.

She showed up to the meeting, so obviously the notice was in plenty of time, but then objected to the meeting saying the by-laws were violated because she only had 24, not 48 hours, notice.

Is the whole meeting invalidated because of that one member that was not noticed properly?

Everyone else did not see it as a big problem, since she showed up, we felt like, let's just get on with the meeting.

She abruptly resigned and stormed out.  We still had a quorum, my question is: did we still have a valid meeting?

I know by-laws should be followed, but is that enough of a violation to invalidate an entire meeting?

[Weldon Merritt]

Related question, this happened to us last week.

 

Please post your question as a new topic.

[Edgar Guest]

Related question, this happened to us last week.

 

Please post your question as a new topic.

 

In other words. click here.

[Guest Geoff Kahan]

Thank you Weldon:

http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/26105-improper-notice-for-special-meeting/