Improper Notice of Regular Meeting

[Guest White Rabbit]

The club bylaws include the following requirement for regular meetings:  "Notice of the time and place of such meetings shall be sent to each Active member at least ten days in advance of the meeting date." Meeting times and dates are posted on the club bulletin board and on an online calendar. Through a fault of the secretary, notice was sent by e-mail 8 days in advance of the meeting date.

A quorum was present on the meeting date, and the chair called the meeting to order. A member than raised a point of order, noting that insufficient notice had been given so that the meeting was invalid and could be conducted for informational purposes only: no votes could be taken, and no business transacted.

The chair found the point of order not well taken. The objecting member appealed. The chair called for a vote on the point of order. Before that vote could be taken, the objecting member asserted that there could be no vote because the meeting was invalid. Since nobody in the room had sufficient knowledge of Robert's Rules, the point was conceded, and the meeting was held for informational purposes only.

Could it have been possible to affirm the chair's ruling by majority vote of those present, and continue the meeting as scheduled?

Thanks for your help.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Guest White Rabbit said:

Could it have been possible to affirm the chair's ruling by majority vote of those present, and continue the meeting as scheduled?

Yes, but the assembly should not have done so, because the chairman’s ruling was wrong.

The member’s argument in regards to whether a vote could be taken on the appeal was flawed. The member claimed that “there could be no vote because the meeting was invalid.” The problem with this reasoning is that whether the meeting was valid was precisely the issue that was presently being decided. The vote on the appeal should have been permitted.

Upon appeal, however, the assembly should have overturned the chairman’s ruling, because his ruling was clearly wrong. The bylaws require ten days of notice for regular meetings, and only eight days of notice was given. As a consequence, the meeting was invalid.

Edited September 25, 2019 at 05:09 PM by Josh Martin

[Chris Harrison]

2 hours ago, Guest White Rabbit said:

Could it have been possible to affirm the chair's ruling by majority vote of those present, and continue the meeting as scheduled?

Yes.  To argue that an Appeal regarding whether the meeting is invalid can't be made because the meeting is invalid is absolutely absurd.  To take that argument to its (extreme) end is that a single member can unilaterally bring everything to a screeching halt by just raising a Point of Order that the meeting is invalid (for any reason they want to dream up).  I can't speak as to whether the meeting was indeed invalid but the members should have made that decision for itself.

[Josh Martin]

6 minutes ago, Chris Harrison said:

I can't speak as to whether the meeting was indeed invalid

Really? The facts presented seem pretty clear to me.

2 hours ago, Guest White Rabbit said:

The club bylaws include the following requirement for regular meetings:  "Notice of the time and place of such meetings shall be sent to each Active member at least ten days in advance of the meeting date." Meeting times and dates are posted on the club bulletin board and on an online calendar. Through a fault of the secretary, notice was sent by e-mail 8 days in advance of the meeting date.

Eight days is less than ten days. I acknowledge that the meeting times and dates are also posted on the club bulletin board and on an online calendar, but posting the item is not the same as sending it to each active member.

[Chris Harrison]

15 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Yes, but the assembly should not have done so, because the chairman’s ruling was wrong.

Was it?  If there were no Bulletin Board or Online calendar I would 100% agree.  However, assuming members had ready access to them, and they were accurate, and the information was posted there at least 10 days before I think a reasonable argument could be made that the notice requirement was complied with. 

I don't know if after all was said I would actually support that argument but I do think it would be reasonable enough.

Edited September 25, 2019 at 05:25 PM by Chris Harrison

[White Rabbit]

Thanks again for your help. It's much appreciated...and additional views will be equally appreciated, should anyone care to offer them.

[Bruce Lages]

Agreeing with the above comments, a point of order that a meeting is invalid should be made as soon as possible after the meeting is called to order. It sounds like this was done in this situation. But a meeting can only be declared invalid by a ruling of the chair, or, if needed, a decision that it is invalid by a majority vote of the members present.

The argument that a vote on an appeal from the ruling of the chair cannot be made is indirectly refuted by RONR in the discussion on inquorate meetings: "Subsidiary and incidental motions, questions of privilege, motions to Raise a Question of Privilege or Call for the Orders of the Day, and other motions may also be considered if they are related to these motions or to the conduct of the meeting while it remain without a quorum." (RONR, p. 347, l.32 - p.348, l.2). Point of Order and Appeal are both incidental motions. It seems to me that this same reasoning would apply to a meeting being declared invalid for inadequate notice. 

[Guest Zev]

3 hours ago, Guest White Rabbit said:

"Notice of the time and place of such meetings shall be sent to each Active member at least ten days in advance of the meeting date."

I am extremely hesitant to interpret "...sent to each Active member..." as-if it had said ..."posted to the club's bulletin board..." But that's just me.

[Gary Novosielski]

13 hours ago, Guest White Rabbit said:

The club bylaws include the following requirement for regular meetings:  "Notice of the time and place of such meetings shall be sent to each Active member at least ten days in advance of the meeting date." Meeting times and dates are posted on the club bulletin board and on an online calendar. Through a fault of the secretary, notice was sent by e-mail 8 days in advance of the meeting date.

A quorum was present on the meeting date, and the chair called the meeting to order. A member than raised a point of order, noting that insufficient notice had been given so that the meeting was invalid and could be conducted for informational purposes only: no votes could be taken, and no business transacted.

The chair found the point of order not well taken. The objecting member appealed. The chair called for a vote on the point of order. Before that vote could be taken, the objecting member asserted that there could be no vote because the meeting was invalid. Since nobody in the room had sufficient knowledge of Robert's Rules, the point was conceded, and the meeting was held for informational purposes only.

Could it have been possible to affirm the chair's ruling by majority vote of those present, and continue the meeting as scheduled?

Thanks for your help.

Apparently you ended up doing the right thing for the wrong reason.  Even without a quorum, subsidiary and incidental motions relating the the conduct of the meeting are allowed, and an Appeal from a ruling of the chair would qualify as one of these.  

However, the chair was wrong to rule the Point of Order not well taken.  And the assembly would have been wrong to sustain that ruling if it had the opportunity to do so.