Calling a meeting

[Guest Rochelle Williams]

Can any member call a meeting or can only the chairs/ co- chairs call a meeting?

How long can an organizational meeting last? 

[Richard Brown]

The answer will be found in your bylaws. What do your bylaws say about special meetings? Special meetings are not allowed unless provided for in the by-laws.

Edited to add: RONR contains no rule pertaining to how long a meeting can last. 

Edited January 22, 2019 at 11:56 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Guest Reply]

Currently we are still in the organizational meeting so laws have not been set. Another member decided to go against the co-chairs to call a meeting and I'm trying to see if that follows the RONR.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

How do you know who is a member?

[Guest Zev]

Prior to the adoption of the bylaws and the enrollment of members the organization has no members. The schedule of meetings to create the organization has in all likelihood been pre-established by the promoters. Any attempt to interject other meetings, change the purpose of the meetings, or replace the promoters should be looked upon as grave, and such individuals should be considered as hostile after being warned and be subject to disciplinary measures if they persist. Also, if you think the meetings are of too long, consider a motion to Fix The Time To Which To Adjourn, a fancy name to set the date and time for a future meeting, and then follow it with a motion to Adjourn. You are not required to suffer in absolute silence. Besides, other attendees may be sympathetic to your goal but just not know what to do.

[Josh Martin]

14 hours ago, Guest Rochelle Williams said:

Can any member call a meeting or can only the chairs/ co- chairs call a meeting?

How long can an organizational meeting last? 

 

14 hours ago, Guest Reply said:

Currently we are still in the organizational meeting so laws have not been set. Another member decided to go against the co-chairs to call a meeting and I'm trying to see if that follows the RONR.

If the term “organizational meeting” is used here to mean a meeting (or a series of meetings) for the purpose of forming a new society, further meetings are set by means of a motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, which could specify that the adjourned meeting be held at the call of the chair. The assembly could also adopt a rule authorizing the chair to call meetings.

Since there are not yet any bylaws, there are no members, since the bylaws define who the members of the society are, and therefore a member cannot possibly call a meeting. At the meetings themselves, all who attend and support the purpose of the mass meetings are considered to be members.

As to the question of how long the organizational meeting may last, it is not clear whether this refers to an individual meeting or the full series of meetings up until a permanent society is established, but there is no upper limit in either event. In the former case, the meeting lasts until the assembly agrees to adjourn. In the latter case, it lasts until the preliminary steps in forming the society, including adopting bylaws, enrolling initial members, and electing initial officers, are completed.

If the term “organizational meeting” is used here to mean something else, please clarify.

9 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

The schedule of meetings to create the organization has in all likelihood been pre-established by the promoters.

Such a schedule may be found highly persuasive by the assembly, but it is not binding unless the assembly has adopted it. The promoters call the first meeting, but have no authority to call additional meetings.

9 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Any attempt to interject other meetings, change the purpose of the meetings, or replace the promoters should be looked upon as grave, and such individuals should be considered as hostile after being warned and be subject to disciplinary measures if they persist.

I do not agree that an attempt to interject other meetings is necessarily hostile to the purpose of the meetings. I agree that attempting to change the purpose of the meetings could be viewed as hostile. Since the role of the promoters is limited to the first meeting (after that, the temporary society has a Chairman pro tem, Secretary pro tem, and Bylaws committee to handle things), replacing them at this juncture would seem to require a time machine.

[Guest Zev]

On ‎1‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 6:53 AM, Josh Martin said:

Such a schedule may be found highly persuasive by the assembly, but it is not binding unless the assembly has adopted it. The promoters call the first meeting, but have no authority to call additional meetings.

When I read §54 I do not get the impression that the promoters are limited in this way. If I were a promoter and believed that a series of meetings were necessary then I would create a schedule that took this into consideration. Naturally there must be some give-and-take since as a promoter I am trying to get the invited guests to agree with me on the overall objectives. I would be amenable to a different schedule if there was widespread opposition to it, however, let us not forget that no organization exists as of yet and I and the other promoters may be on the hook for expenses in the eventuality that the assembly votes down the motion to form the organization. The invited guests should be sensitive to these facts and grant me and the other promoters a wide latitude of options. Raising opposition to a non-adopted schedule or announcing that the promoters have no authority to call additional meetings does not seem to be very helpful.

[Josh Martin]

15 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

When I read §54 I do not get the impression that the promoters are limited in this way. If I were a promoter and believed that a series of meetings were necessary then I would create a schedule that took this into consideration. Naturally there must be some give-and-take since as a promoter I am trying to get the invited guests to agree with me on the overall objectives. I would be amenable to a different schedule if there was widespread opposition to it, however, let us not forget that no organization exists as of yet and I and the other promoters may be on the hook for expenses in the eventuality that the assembly votes down the motion to form the organization. The invited guests should be sensitive to these facts and grant me and the other promoters a wide latitude of options. Raising opposition to a non-adopted schedule or announcing that the promoters have no authority to call additional meetings does not seem to be very helpful.

I have no objection to the suggestion that the assembly should grant the promoters some latitude in this regard, in consideration of the time and money they have invested, but it must be understood that, ultimately, it is the assembly which decides upon the schedule of meetings.

“Introduction and adoption of a motion to fix the date, hour, and place of the next meeting (22), at which the report of the bylaws committee will be presented. If it is impractical to set a time and place for the next meeting, the motion can be that "when the meeting adjourns, it adjourn to meet at the call of the chair." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 555)

I also have no objection to the suggestion that raising opposition to the proposed schedule (without at least having a good reason) is “not very helpful,” although I think it is indeed helpful to remind the assembly that the authority to call additional meetings belongs to the assembly, not the promoters.

What I primarily took issue with was the suggestion that “Any attempt to interject other meetings... should be looked upon as grave, and such individuals should be considered as hostile after being warned and be subject to disciplinary measures if they persist.” This appears to be a reference to the rule that “Any person at a mass meeting who, after being advised, persists in an obvious attempt to divert the meeting to a different purpose from that for which it was called, or who otherwise tries to disrupt the proceedings, becomes subject to the disciplinary procedures described in 61.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 546)

I am unpersuaded that moving to create a meeting other than that suggested by the promoters, in and of itself, should be viewed as an attempt “to disrupt the proceedings” in the meaning of that rule. Presumably, the member simply feels that a different schedule would be more helpful in accomplishing the assembly’s goal of establishing a society.

Edited January 26, 2019 at 03:34 PM by Josh Martin