President adjournment

[Quest]

Posting for clarification here. So the president can ask about further business and then adjourn but can they adjourn because a meeting and it's members are out of order? We had a very contentious meeting recently and the President stated this meeting is adjourned and left the meeting. There was other business on the agenda. The VP stated he had no such authority and took over the meeting after the president stated it was adjourned and left. So this question has a part A and a part B...Part B is dependent on part A. If the president had the authority to end the meeting due to the circumstances the it is a given the VP did NOT have the authority to take the chair and continue...Our Bylaws state the role of the VP if to perform such duties as the President assigns.   Thank you

[Joshua Katz]

3 minutes ago, Quest said:

can they adjourn because a meeting and it's members are out of order?

No. But, barring a timely point of order, he did anyway.

3 minutes ago, Quest said:

The VP stated he had no such authority and took over the meeting after the president stated it was adjourned and left.

If there was no timely point of order, and the meeting was, in fact, adjourned, then the VP had no authority to simply continue the meeting.

[George Mervosh]

Based on your description the President cannot unilaterally adjourn a meeting because it is contentious.  In fact it is his job to maintain order.  The VP acted properly. 

Edited to add:  I respectfully disagree with Mr. Katz's position on this.  Adjourning and walking out is not proper and ignoring the president's tantrum and continuing the meeting was the correct thing to do.

 

Edited October 15, 2020 at 02:50 PM by George Mervosh

[Joshua Katz]

I agree that adjourning and walking out is not proper. And I agree a point of order would be well-taken. Perhaps we can see the VP's actions as equivalent to the VP raising a point of order.

[Quest]

Thank you...so the president's action could be viewed as a response to a point of order....and so could the VP? What a mess...

Edited October 15, 2020 at 05:54 PM by Quest

[Gary Novosielski]

I agree with Mr. Mervosh, and I would point out that if the meeting was not properly under control, the presiding officer is most often the person who's responsible for that.   Throwing a tantrum is a classic example of being part of the problem, not the solution. 

The VP acted correctly by assuming a point of order, ruling that the meeting was ongoing, and taking the chair.

I have seen situations where things became so tangled that the chair declared (without objection) a recess, to allow the heat to dissipate.  Even that is a fairly drastic action, but it allows the meeting to continue once order is restored.  Attempting to adjourn it is counterproductive and harmful to good order in its own right.

[Joshua Katz]

23 minutes ago, Quest said:

Thank you...so the president's action could be viewed as a response to a point of order....and so could the VP? What a mess...

No, I don't see how the President's action could be viewed as a response to a point of order. The VP at least did what would be done in response to a well-taken point of order: continue the meeting. A well-taken point of order regarding lack of decorum would not result in adjourning the meeting, so the President's actions can't be seen that way, at least so far as I can see.

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, Quest said:

So the president can ask about further business and then adjourn but can they adjourn because a meeting and it's members are out of order?

The President may only adjourn a meeting unilaterally in the following circumstances:

• When the assembly has completed its full order of business and, when the chair asks if there is any further business, no member responds.
• When the assembly has previously set a time for adjournment and that time has been reached.
• When there is a "fire, riot, or other extreme emergency" and "taking time for a vote on adjourning would be dangerous to those present." RONR (12th ed.) 8:10

So no, the President may not unilaterally adjourn a meeting on the grounds that some members are out of order.

4 hours ago, Quest said:

We had a very contentious meeting recently and the President stated this meeting is adjourned and left the meeting. There was other business on the agenda. The VP stated he had no such authority and took over the meeting after the president stated it was adjourned and left. So this question has a part A and a part B...Part B is dependent on part A. If the president had the authority to end the meeting due to the circumstances the it is a given the VP did NOT have the authority to take the chair and continue...Our Bylaws state the role of the VP if to perform such duties as the President assigns.

The President did not have the authority to declare the meeting adjourned and the VP did have the authority (and duty) to take the chair and continue the meeting.

1 hour ago, Quest said:

Thank you...so the president's action could be viewed as a response to a point of order....and so could the VP? What a mess...

We aren't told exactly what happened prior to the chair declaring the meeting adjourned, but no, I don't think what happened can be viewed as a response to a Point of Order without being very creative.

Edited October 15, 2020 at 07:17 PM by Josh Martin

[Quest]

Thank you all. This has been very helpful