canceled uncanceled recanceled meeting

[Weldon Merritt]

15 hours ago, jstackpo said:

You give up too easy.  Weldon's first quoted sentence had more than you copied - go read the whole sentence.  He is not inconsistent at all.

Thanks, John. Taken out of context, the two quotes Guest Zev posted certainly appear incosistent. Just goes to show how easy it is to quote  something out of context to support a particular view.

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Scheduling and rescheduling meetings does not need explicit authorization in the bylaws any more than the bylaws must pre--authorize painting the clubhouse red.  The problem comes when individuals try to take on this authority, and that would require granting of powers in the bylaws.

I disagree. P. 575, ll. 21-25 seems pretty clear that autorization for rescheduling a meeting  must be in the bylaws, at least if the meeting day is set in the bylaws. But I also concur with Josh that no bylaws authorization would be necessary if "the assembly’s meetings are scheduled by resolution, rather than in the bylaws."

And lest anyone again claim that I am being inconsitent, I view the bylaws authority for the assembly (or the board) to schedule the meetings by resolution to include the authority to reschedule them, by the motion to amend something previously adopted.

[Edited to add final paragraph.]

Edited December 25, 2017 at 06:40 PM by Weldon Merritt
Add text.

[Guest Nancy N.]

 

Guest Zev says ("Thursday" -- O how wonderful upgrades are, however did we endure those pesky post numbers as long as we did  -- at 9:11 PM) :

On 12/21/2017 at 9:11 PM, Guest Zev said:

but I cannot find in RONR anything about cancelling meetings.

So we're all on the same page, let me summarize that: we all agree that RONR does not say anything about cancelling meetings.

But Guest Zev says (12/21/2017 at 3:53 PM)

On 12/21/2017 at 9:11 PM, Guest Zev said:

 

, with ambiguity that Mr Merritt, and probably others, interprets to mean that M. Zev misunderstands the passage, or maybe just the placement of the clause.

On 12/21/2017 at 11:17 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

 

... OK, scrap all that (The software seems to be preventing me from deleting it; I guess that's an acceptable trade-off for ridding of those meddlesome post numbers).  We now have tangled two different issues.  The first is whether Guest Zev erroneously believes that lines 21 - 23, by themselves authorize a board to re-schedule a meeting, or he does not.  (I submit that the facts, as Mr Merritt has laid out, are beyond dispute.)  Only Guest Zev can resolve that question, should he care to rescind his surrender and re-engage.  (And Guest Zev, I think you did omit the wording that Mr Merritt cited (Thursday at 11:17 PM), i.e., the beginning of the sentence, on lines 21 - 22 -- by definition, because you didn't bother to re-type it; but it seems to me clear that anyone who has read line 23 has probably read, and understood, lines 21-22.  So why bother to re-type it?  Hence, it is an omission, but a sensible and immaterial omission.)

The second, and more intriguing to me (no, it's not intriguing to me because I brought it up -- I brought it up because it's intriguing to me) is the question of whether the authorization in the bylaws to re-schedule a meeting implicitly authorizes cancelling one.  I lean towards yes, and would appreciate other opinions.

 

At the risk of being tiresomely and tediously repetitive, Mr Merritt said, on Thursday at 11:17 PM:

 ... The counter to your argument is that if the bylaws must allow for rescheduling a meeting, they also must allow for cancelling a meetng. Otherwsie (a tip of the hat to Mr Merritt), it can't be done.

And it is my proposition that when the bylaws do explicitly allow for rescheduling meetings, they thereby intrinsically also allow cancelling,

[Guest Nancy N.]

(I posted the above, on 25 Dec 2017 "just now," which in this case was about 3:12 PM, EST, without being able to see Mr Merritt's reply of "2 hours ago".)

And:

2 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

I view the bylaws authority for the assembly (or the board) to schedule the meetings by resolution to include the authority to reschedule them, by the motion to amend something previously adopted.

Thanks, Weldon, I hadn't thought of that.

[Guest Zev]

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 12:13 PM, Guest Nancy N. said:

The first is whether Guest Zev erroneously believes that lines 21 - 23, by themselves authorize a board to re-schedule a meeting, or he does not.

I will answer given the request.

First of all I made no such statement. You may proceed backward in this thread and confirm the fact that I said: If the Board has the authority... Second, RONR does not grant such authority because it never says such a thing. For me to have said such a thing would make no sense. What I did in fact say is that even absent a bylaw provision I saw no earth-shattering event. The real problem at this juncture, with or without bylaw authorization, but the real problem is whether some harm to the organization flowed from these events and what opinion the original poster has and whether she feels some action is needed to rectify it, if in fact it needs rectification. Cutting the president some slack at this point is probably a good idea, after all, look at what the poor guy has been through: schedule a meeting, cancel a meeting, re-schedule a meeting, re-cancel a meeting. What next? Let's have some empathy. He has the best interests of the organization at heart and is trying to take into consideration a whole series of facts, and I am in no condition to second-guess and tell him what to do. Peace on earth, goodwill toward men, Anyone?

[Joshua Katz]

5 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

The real problem at this juncture, with or without bylaw authorization, but the real problem is whether some harm to the organization flowed from these events and what opinion the original poster has and whether she feels some action is needed to rectify it, if in fact it needs rectification.

Well, we don't now at this point if any harm will result or not.  At the moment, the canceled uncanceled recanceled meeting is still in the future.  If no one shows up, or less than a quorum, then the harm will be quite minimal.  If a quorum shows up, while others were kept away by a notice, which they had every reason to believe (except for having studied RONR) that it was canceled, then the harm can be considerable.  

7 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Cutting the president some slack at this point is probably a good idea, after all, look at what the poor guy has been through: schedule a meeting, cancel a meeting, re-schedule a meeting, re-cancel a meeting. What next? Let's have some empathy.

Sure.  He might save himself all this trouble in the future by being aware he has no such power to begin with (if that's the case).   

[Guest Zev]

Just remember next time someone posts a similar question: The word "cancel" or "canceled" occurs only two times in RONR and only once in PL, and in none of those cases does it have anything to do with cancelling a meeting.