Reorganization Meetings

[CornelR]

Good morning all,

We have an interesting situation here in Idaho with the primary which is actually today. First a few details. In Idaho, as in many states, we have what are known as precinct committeemen or in some states precinct captains who are responsible to keep the people in their precinct informed about political issues and candidates. They are elected every two years in the primary by the electorate. Their term runs from eight days after the date of election through eight days after the succeeding election. So, for example, any precinct committeemen who are elected today in our primary will not take office for eight more days. This means that the current sitting precinct committeemen are still able to do the business of the party.

Every two years, each Central committee holds what is called a reorganization meeting primarily for the purpose of electing new officers, and every four years that reorganization meeting includes election of delegates to the state convention as well as election of new officers. That is the situation this year.

The incumbent chairman of the County Central committee, legislative district committee, and region committee is required to call a meeting for their respective reorganization meeting. When he/she calls for the meeting, they must specify a date, time, and place and not only apprise the members but they must place a press release in the paper of record for the county or counties as needed. The meeting has to happen based on several different requirements in the state rules but it basically must be done in a window of three days starting eight days after the primary and ending 11 days after the primary for all but the region committee.

This year, the state sent out their normal reminder but their instructions were not as specific as they should have been and many incumbent chairmen of the counties and legislative districts called their meetings for less than eight days after the election.

There is some concern that this was done intentionally for reasons which I will not go into here. My concern is advising the chairman of the respective committees of a bulletproof method for fixing this. Here is what I have come up with and I would like your parliamentary opinion as to its suitability.

I encouraged the chairman to go ahead and have the meeting on the date assigned and then assuming they have a quorum, amend the agenda and set a new date within the three-day window, or simply recess to the three-day window. I believe this will solve the problem and prevent the counties and legislative districts from having their corrected meeting invalidated for not following state rules. This procedure would I believe, satisfy the state rules and parliamentary procedure for correcting the problem.

One concern that came up was what if a quorum was not achieved at the noticed meeting? Based on Roberts Rules section 40:7, could not the assembly recess to the three-day window or set the time to adjourn at an hour late in one of the days within the three-day window?

Which would be the best method for setting a correct date given the strange parameters?

Thank you for your help on this.

[Richard Brown]

On 5/17/2022 at 7:32 AM, CornelR said:

Good morning all,

 

We have an interesting situation here in Idaho with the primary which is actually today. First a few details. In Idaho, as in many states, we have what are known as precinct committeemen or in some states precinct captains who are responsible to keep the people in their precinct informed about political issues and candidates. They are elected every two years in the primary by the electorate. Their term runs from eight days after the date of election through eight days after the succeeding election. So, for example, any precinct committeemen who are elected today in our primary will not take office for eight more days. This means that the current sitting precinct committeemen are still able to do the business of the party.

 

Every two years, each Central committee holds what is called a reorganization meeting primarily for the purpose of electing new officers, and every four years that reorganization meeting includes election of delegates to the state convention as well as election of new officers. That is the situation this year.

 

The incumbent chairman of the County Central committee, legislative district committee, and region committee is required to call a meeting for their respective reorganization meeting. When he/she calls for the meeting, they must specify a date, time, and place and not only apprise the members but they must place a press release in the paper of record for the county or counties as needed. The meeting has to happen based on several different requirements in the state rules but it basically must be done in a window of three days starting eight days after the primary and ending 11 days after the primary for all but the region committee.

 

This year, the state sent out their normal reminder but their instructions were not as specific as they should have been and many incumbent chairmen of the counties and legislative districts called their meetings for less than eight days after the election.

 

There is some concern that this was done intentionally for reasons which I will not go into here. My concern is advising the chairman of the respective committees of a bulletproof method for fixing this. Here is what I have come up with and I would like your parliamentary opinion as to its suitability.

 

I encouraged the chairman to go ahead and have the meeting on the date assigned and then assuming they have a quorum, amend the agenda and set a new date within the three-day window, or simply recess to the three-day window. I believe this will solve the problem and prevent the counties and legislative districts from having their corrected meeting invalidated for not following state rules. This procedure would I believe, satisfy the state rules and parliamentary procedure for correcting the problem.

 

One concern that came up was what if a quorum was not achieved at the noticed meeting? Based on Roberts Rules section 40:7, could not the assembly recess to the three-day window or set the time to adjourn at an hour late in one of the days within the three-day window?

 

Which would be the best method for setting a correct date given the strange parameters?

 

Thank you for your help on this.

Since you have not told us what the notice requirements are for these reorganizational meetings, I am assuming for the sake of this answer that there is not sufficient time to call and notice a meeting to be held within the correct window of 8 to 11 days after the election. 

Therefore, my suggestion is that for any meetings which have been set for a date too soon that the respective Chairmen, with or without a few additional members, show up at the appointed time and place, call the meetings to order, and then set an an adjourned  meeting for a time and place that is within the four day window required by law.  That is called “fixing the time to which to adjourn” in RONR and is one of the few things that can legitimately be done even in the absence of a quorum. That is why I said even a Chairman alone can be the one to show up and set the adjourned meeting. If the chairman isn’t available, any other member or group of members can do the same thing.  It is covered in section 22 of RONR (12th ed.). 

There is a very recent thread in this forum about this exact situation and one of our members , Jonathan Jacobs, aka @J. J.has also written an article in a parliamentary journal  about how to do this. I will come back later and give you a citation or link to his article and to the other thread (discussion) in this forum that I referred to unless JJ or someone else does it first.

 

 

[George Mervosh]

On 5/17/2022 at 10:05 AM, Richard Brown said:

Since you have not told us what the notice requirements are for these reorganizational meetings, I am assuming for the sake of this answer that there is not sufficient time to call and notice a meeting to be held within the correct window of 8 to 11 days after the election. 

Therefore, my suggestion is that for any meetings which have been set for a date too soon that the respective Chairmen, with or without a few additional members, show up at the appointed time and place, call the meetings to order, and then set an an adjourned  meeting for a time and place that is within the four day window required by law.  That is called “fixing the time to which to adjourn” in RONR and is one of the few things that can legitimately be done even in the absence of a quorum. That is why I said even a Chairman alone can be the one to show up and set the adjourned meeting. If the chairman isn’t available, any other member or group of members can do the same thing.  It is covered in section 22 of RONR (12th ed.). 

There is a very recent thread in this forum about this exact situation and one of our members , Jonathan Jacobs, aka @J. J.has also written an article in a parliamentary journal  about how to do this. I will come back later and give you a citation or link to his article and to the other thread (discussion) in this forum that I referred to unless JJ or someone else does it first.

Doesn't the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn need to be made at a regular or properly called meeting?  I'm gathering the meeting in question is not properly called.

Edited May 17, 2022 at 02:28 PM by George Mervosh

[Richard Brown]

On 5/17/2022 at 9:27 AM, George Mervosh said:

Doesn't the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn need to be made at a regular or properly called meeting?  I'm gathering the meeting in question is not properly called.

Yes, it does, but the original poster has not given us any indication that the meeting was not properly called or noticed. Based on what I read, I understand that it was properly called, but for a date that is not inside the four day window specified by state law. I think setting an adjourned meeting that does fall within that date range would be proper.  You do raise a good point, though.

[Atul Kapur]

On 5/17/2022 at 10:50 AM, Richard Brown said:

I understand that it was properly called, but for a date that is not inside the four day window specified by state law

I believe Mr. Mervosh's question was whether it can be considered to have been "properly called" if it was in violation of the requirement in law that it be held within the window.

Great question, George!

[George Mervosh]

On 5/17/2022 at 11:02 AM, Atul Kapur said:

I believe Mr. Mervosh's question was whether it can be considered to have been "properly called" if it was in violation of the requirement in law that it be held within the window.

That is exactly my question, Dr. Kapur.

[Richard Brown]

On 5/17/2022 at 10:02 AM, Atul Kapur said:

I believe Mr. Mervosh's question was whether it can be considered to have been "properly called" if it was in violation of the requirement in law that it be held within the window.

Great question, George!

Well, when RONR talks about a meeting being properly called, I’m pretty confident it’s referring to being properly called pursuant to the rules of the organization regarding being called by someone authorized to call the meeting and proper notice being given.

Since an adjourned meeting is in fact a separate meeting and it will be held within the window prescribed by state law, I believe using the process to set an adjourned meeting would be entirely appropriate.

But, assuming for the sake of argument that setting  an adjourned meeting is not appropriate and that there is not time to call a new meeting within that four day window, what would you suggest this organization do?

[Richard Brown]

@CornelRhere is the link to the other discussion on this topic that I referred to. In one of his comments, JJ provides a link to his article on the subject which I also referred to.   https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/39335-is-an-emergency-change-of-location-valid/#comment-233210

[Atul Kapur]

On 5/17/2022 at 11:31 AM, Richard Brown said:

Well, when RONR talks about a meeting being properly called, I’m pretty confident it’s referring to being properly called pursuant to the rules of the organization regarding being called by someone authorized to call the meeting and proper notice being given

Richard, are you saying that someone can properly call an illegal meeting?

[Richard Brown]

On 5/17/2022 at 12:45 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Richard, are you saying that someone can properly call an illegal meeting?

No, of course not.   I see no reason why the originally scheduled meeting or the adjourned meeting violate anything in sections 9:13 - 19 regarding special meetings and adjourned meetings.  Are you saying that it would be an illegal meeting? 

BTW, I'm still waiting for you or George or someone to offer a solution if you think mine is inappropriate.

Edited May 17, 2022 at 06:47 PM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction in second sentence and edited last sentence.

[Atul Kapur]

On 5/17/2022 at 2:28 PM, Richard Brown said:

I see no reason why the originally scheduled meeting or the adjourned meeting violate anything in sections 9:13 - 19 regarding special meetings and adjourned meetings.  Are you saying that it would be an illegal meeting? 

We are told that, by higher-level authority, the meeting has to be held within a three-day window. Therefore, it would be in violation of the rules that apply. (I had thought that it was by statute, which is why I used the word "illegal", but the same principle applies as it is a rule that supercedes RONR).

On 5/17/2022 at 2:28 PM, Richard Brown said:

BTW, I'm still waiting for you or George or someone to offer a solution if you think mine is inappropriate.

Don't try to change the subject, Richard! We're dealing with the propriety of your response, here. 😉

[Richard Brown]

On 5/17/2022 at 2:09 PM, Atul Kapur said:

We are told that, by higher-level authority, the meeting has to be held within a three-day window.

The adjourned meeting, which by definition is a separate meeting, WILL be held within that three or four day window (it isn't clear from the wording of original post whether the period is actually three or four days).  22:1 and 22:9 (RONR 12th ed.).

On 5/17/2022 at 2:09 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Don't try to change the subject, Richard! We're dealing with the propriety of your response, here. 😉

No, we are trying to find a solution to CornelR's predicament.  So far, in the seven hours since he posted his question, I am the only one who has offered a solution. ☹️

[George Mervosh]

On 5/17/2022 at 3:33 PM, Richard Brown said:

The adjourned meeting, which by definition is a separate meeting, WILL be held within that three or four day window (it isn't clear from the wording of original post whether the period is actually three or four days).  22:1 and 22:9 (RONR 12th ed.).

No, we are trying to find a solution to CornelR's predicament.  So far, in the seven hours since he posted his question, I am the only one who has offered a solution. ☹️

Yes, it is a separate meeting, but my next question (or the other one restated) is, if the first meeting of a session is not a regular or properly called meeting, isn't the adjourned meeting which was established at other than a regular or properly called meeting, equally procedurally improper?  I still think the answer is, yes.

[CornelR]

Sorry I have been unavailable. the original meetings were properly called but were not in the permissible 3 day window.

[CornelR]

On 5/17/2022 at 7:27 AM, George Mervosh said:

Doesn't the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn need to be made at a regular or properly called meeting?  I'm gathering the meeting in question is not properly called.

The meetings were all properly called, they were just not in the required 3 day window.

[CornelR]

On 5/17/2022 at 12:33 PM, Richard Brown said:

The adjourned meeting, which by definition is a separate meeting, WILL be held within that three or four day window (it isn't clear from the wording of original post whether the period is actually three or four days).  22:1 and 22:9 (RONR 12th ed.).

No, we are trying to find a solution to CornelR's predicament.  So far, in the seven hours since he posted his question, I am the only one who has offered a solution. ☹️

Thank you for the help. I will forward this to the State party.

[Richard Brown]

On 5/17/2022 at 2:46 PM, George Mervosh said:

Yes, it is a separate meeting, but my next question (or the other one restated) is, if the first meeting of a session is not a regular or properly called meeting, isn't the adjourned meeting which was established at other than a regular or properly called meeting, equally procedurally improper?  I still think the answer is, yes.

In my opinion the first meeting is a properly called and noticed meeting and neither it nor the adjourned meeting would be an illegal  meeting.  And I'm still waiting for someone to come up with another suggestion for CornelR.  It's been eight and a half hours since his post.

Edited May 17, 2022 at 09:01 PM by Richard Brown
Added last sentence

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/17/2022 at 8:32 AM, CornelR said:

I encouraged the chairman to go ahead and have the meeting on the date assigned and then assuming they have a quorum, amend the agenda and set a new date within the three-day window, or simply recess to the three-day window.

Just an additional point.  The motion you're proposing is to Set the Time to Which to Adjourn, and this is one of the few motions that do not require a quorum to be present.  So only one or two members would be required to attend the first meeting, and set the date for the second one, with no need to worry about beating the bushes for a quorum.

However, amending an agenda does require a quorum so you'd have to leave that for the second meeting if there was not a quorum at the first one.

[CornelR]

On 5/17/2022 at 3:44 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Just an additional point.  The motion you're proposing is to Set the Time to Which to Adjourn, and this is one of the few motions that do not require a quorum to be present.  So only one or two members would be required to attend the first meeting, and set the date for the second one, with no need to worry about beating the bushes for a quorum.

However, amending an agenda does require a quorum so you'd have to leave that for the second meeting if there was not a quorum at the first one.

Got it! Thank you.

[George Mervosh]

On 5/17/2022 at 5:00 PM, Richard Brown said:

In my opinion the first meeting is a properly called and noticed meeting and neither it nor the adjourned meeting would be an illegal  meeting.  And I'm still waiting for someone to come up with another suggestion for CornelR.  It's been eight and a half hours since his post.

I am trying to understand what is proper here, and I did not know we were on the clock.