Improper special meeting

[Guest Dave K]

First off here is our bylaws, volunteer fire company...

Section 2 - Request for Special Meeting
Any active or active life member may request verbally or in writing that the President call a special meeting for action of a definite subject of business. The President may use discretion on granting such a request.

So here's what happened.  The president called a special meeting, lets assume it was requested properly by a life member.  The president advertised the meeting on Saturday that on Tuesday we would be having a special meeting, but he only advertised using our call dispatching phone app, so all the members that don't have that were not notified of the meeting.  He also did not state the purpose of the meeting.  I am the vice president, he refused to tell me his plans or meet with me prior, so I let him go knowing he was in the wrong.  After he opened the meeting I called him out of order for failure to advertise the business at hand.  At that time he proceeded to argue, back forth, and so on, I had to explain to him what Roberts rules are, that we are required to follow them, it's called out in our bylaws, and I had to read him our bylaws several times.  Turns out he was planning on improperly calling a disciplinary action on me from when I yelled at the fire chief for making a discriminatory comment about my federally protected disability on a training exercise.  Finally the president secretary and about 17 members which is more then attend a normal meeting agree they aren't having a meeting they're just going to discuss what happen that night and what to do about it.  He also announced that there would be a special meeting next Tuesday to replace me on the disciplinary board.  At that time I got up and walked out, made a phone call, calmed down walked into the back of the meeting room to hear them discussing "well make sure you say that in the disciplinary session" and then they see me standing there and change the topic back to bylaws. 

I believe this was probably some form of an improper meeting. 

What can be done about it, what is the proper terminology?

What are your thoughts?

Thank You in advance

[J. J.]

Under RONR, there is no prohibition on members getting together and talking outside of a meeting. 

It is possible that some statute in your state may cover this; I would suggest that, for that, you contact an attorney. 

[Guest Zev]

It seems to me that the fire chief may have a different perspective on what influence your disability has as it relates to this perilous job. The chief's job does involve saving property but also lives and one of them may be yours. In the middle of a real conflagration there is little room for mistakes. Try seeing this situation from his point of view.

[Joshua Katz]

Well, I had typed out a response, then I got here:

10 hours ago, Guest Dave K said:

Finally the president secretary and about 17 members which is more then attend a normal meeting agree they aren't having a meeting they're just going to discuss what happen that night and what to do about it. 

I was going to say that the special meeting was invalid, but since no one seems to think it was a meeting, that isn't a problem. It's just a group of people talking.

10 hours ago, Guest Dave K said:

He also announced that there would be a special meeting next Tuesday to replace me on the disciplinary board. 

Okay, assuming he plans to give proper notice, this seems to be in order.

 

10 hours ago, Guest Dave K said:

Turns out he was planning on improperly calling a disciplinary action on me from when I yelled at the fire chief for making a discriminatory comment about my federally protected disability on a training exercise.

Setting the content aside, what is improper about it? What do your disciplinary procedures say, and in what way is the plan inadequate with respect to them?

 

10 hours ago, Guest Dave K said:

I believe this was probably some form of an improper meeting. 

 

It doesn't seem to me to be a meeting at all.

 

[Atul Kapur]

Highlighting one aspect of Mr. Katz' response: This was not a meeting (everyone seems to agree on this). Therefore, announcing the meeting next Tuesday at this "gathering" is not proper notice, which should be given to every member as per the requirements in your bylaws.

[Dave K]

On 9/26/2019 at 4:31 PM, Guest Zev said:

It seems to me that the fire chief may have a different perspective on what influence your disability has as it relates to this perilous job. The chief's job does involve saving property but also lives and one of them may be yours. In the middle of a real conflagration there is little room for mistakes. Try seeing this situation from his point of view.

The chief made a derogatory remark about my needing medication daily, the only time it affects my ability to perform is when I take a certain rescue medication and if I take that I just don't respond to calls, which is fine as we are only volunteers and do not have any requirement to respond.  I already spoke with an attorney and it is clearly disability discrimination.  I just really don't want to sue an organization I enjoy because of this stupidity. 

[Dave K]

On 9/27/2019 at 12:45 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Highlighting one aspect of Mr. Katz' response: This was not a meeting (everyone seems to agree on this). Therefore, announcing the meeting next Tuesday at this "gathering" is not proper notice, which should be given to every member as per the requirements in your bylaws.

Thank You Mr. Kapur, as a follow up question, we have 106 members on the record, only 15 or so show up to a normal meeting, probably 30 of the 106 have the right to vote, but they are all members in good standing.  Who must be notified of the special meeting, the 30 that can vote, or all 106 on the record log?

[Joshua Katz]

29 minutes ago, Dave K said:

Thank You Mr. Kapur, as a follow up question, we have 106 members on the record, only 15 or so show up to a normal meeting, probably 30 of the 106 have the right to vote, but they are all members in good standing.  Who must be notified of the special meeting, the 30 that can vote, or all 106 on the record log?

I hesitate to answer this without seeing your bylaws, but how do the bylaws determine who can vote and who cannot?

[Dave K]

Just now, Joshua Katz said:

I hesitate to answer this without seeing your bylaws, but how do the bylaws determine who can vote and who cannot?

It is based on membership class.  Past active, past active life, probationary, and junior members can not vote or hold offices.  Active, Active Life, and contributing all can vote and hold offices.  Now all of those members can have keys, show up for a call, ride a truck, help at a function, and are covered by all insurances. 

[Joshua Katz]

It seems more likely to me than not that notice must go to those who can vote. But really, that's just an impression - this is a question of bylaw interpretation which only your organization can do.

[Atul Kapur]

I would think that notice should go to all members who are entitled to attend the meeting; not just those who can vote; I'm not certain if that means I disagree with Mr. Katz. I agree with him that this is a question of interpreting bylaws and that is something that only the organization can do for itself. 

[Bruce Lages]

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

It seems more likely to me than not that notice must go to those who can vote. But really, that's just an impression - this is a question of bylaw interpretation which only your organization can do.

I agree, but would also add that Dave K's membership distinctions, if they are an accurate reflection of the actual bylaw language, seem to create other considerations. Under RONR, there are only members and non-members, with members having all the rights of membership and non-members having none. If certain members in this organization are only restricted from voting and holding office, then it could be argued that these non-voting members still retain the right to attend meetings, make motions, and participate in debate. Notice should be sent to these members as well - in other words to all members.

[Joshua Katz]

5 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

I'm not certain if that means I disagree with Mr. Katz.

It's not a strong disagreement. The key point is that it's a bylaw interpretation question, I think. That we may disagree on our personal interpretations is largely neither here nor there. Also, my view could change upon seeing the exact bylaw language (which is not a request, just an observation).