Hypothetical Question: A Truly "Ad Hoc" Meeting?

[TheGrandRascal]

No, I'm not referring to a special meeting, which is called in accordance with particular rules. I'm referring to a completely and totally impromtu meeting.

Imagine there's a small social group of, say, six members, who consider themselves a Club. (They have -- and need -- very few rules. But one of these sets a regular meeting time.)

Well, one day, in between their regular meetings, it just so happens that all six of them turn up at the local library at the same time!

Hmmm! They have a plenum -- there are no absentees -- and they certainly have a quorum, so couldn't they waive any notice requirement and simply "declare themselves a meeting"?

What would such a meeting be competent to consider? Only unfinished business? Only new business? And what about that motion that at their previous meeting was "postponed to our next regular meeting" (which this one most definitely ain't)?

It's definitely not a procedure I would recommend for any but the tiniest and non-serious of groups owing to the potential for legal troubles, but I am interested to know if such an "impromptu meeting" is even at least theoretically possible...

Thoughts?

Edited February 14, 2023 at 05:51 PM by TheGrandRascal

[Gary Novosielski]

What notice requirement?  Do they have any bylaws?  Do they have a parliamentary authority?  Do they have a membership list? A president?  A secretary?

If not, they're not a society as understood in RONR.  They are as series of mass meetings at best.  If the rules in RONR should somehow apply (and I don't see how, at present), then impromptu meetings are not meetings.  If they're not regular meetings, and they're not special meetings, then they're just people who happen to be in the same room, and could properly consider no business whatsoever.

[TheGrandRascal]

On 2/14/2023 at 12:58 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

What notice requirement? Do they have any bylaws? Do they have a parliamentary authority? Do they have a membership list? A president? A secretary?

Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that they have all of these, and that their Parliamentary Authority is RONR-12.

I must remind you all of a quotation I cannot now find, but distinctly remember (though perhaps not in these precise words): "Rules exist for the protection of the minority, and need not be strictly enforced where there is no minority to protect." The rules about meeting notice protect absentees; but in this case, there are none. The rule should therefore be waivable.

Edited February 14, 2023 at 06:31 PM by TheGrandRascal

[George Mervosh]

On 2/14/2023 at 1:29 PM, TheGrandRascal said:

Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that they have all of these, and that their Parliamentary Authority is RONR-12.

I must remind you all of a quotation I cannot now find, but distinctly remember (though perhaps not in these precise words): "Rules exist for the protection of the minority, and need not be strictly enforced where there is no minority to protect." The rules about meeting notice protect absentees; but in this case, there are none. The rule should therefore be waivable.

No.  According to your facts, this is not a regular or properly called meeting, so it doesn't matter if all members are present.  Absolutely nothing adopted in such a meeting will be valid as it is a fundamental principal of parliamentary law that business may only be transacted at a regular or properly called meeting.  This is not about a rule protecting absentees.

Edited February 14, 2023 at 06:51 PM by George Mervosh

[TheGrandRascal]

 

Quote

"...it is a fundamental principal of parliamentary law that business may only be transacted at a regular or properly called meeting."

...To which they would say (if they existed): "Rot." 🤔 

[Atul Kapur]

If they don't care about the rules, then why would the question about what the rules say even come up?

[Josh Martin]

On 2/14/2023 at 11:47 AM, TheGrandRascal said:

They have a plenum -- there are no absentees -- and they certainly have a quorum, so couldn't they waive any notice requirement and simply "declare themselves a meeting"?

This is a topic on which there frequently is disagreement on this forum. I concur with Mr. Mervosh that the answer is "no," unless, of course, the organization's rules or applicable law provide some mechanism for this. As Mr. Mervosh has noted, it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that business can only be conducted at a regular or properly called meeting. RONR does not provide an exception to this rule in the case that all members are present.

If the organization wishes to adopt a rule providing that "If all members of the assembly are present, the members may agree to spontaneously hold a special meeting, without notice," the organization is free to do so. But that is not the rule in RONR.

On 2/14/2023 at 11:47 AM, TheGrandRascal said:

What would such a meeting be competent to consider? Only unfinished business? Only new business?

Assuming the meeting could be held at all (which it cannot), the assembly would be free to consider any business it wished, since the rules against introducing business which is not included in the call of a special meeting are not applicable if there are no absentees.

On 2/14/2023 at 11:47 AM, TheGrandRascal said:

And what about that motion that at their previous meeting was "postponed to our next regular meeting" (which this one most definitely ain't)?

This would require a suspension of the rules, which requires a 2/3 vote for adoption.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/14/2023 at 1:53 PM, TheGrandRascal said:

 

...To which they would say (if they existed): "Rot." 🤔 

 

They can say whatever non-magic words they like, but any action taken arising out of that non-meeting are not the actions of the society, but are their own personal actions for which they have personal responsibility.  (If they exist.)  (Or not.)

[TheGrandRascal]

On 2/14/2023 at 1:56 PM, Atul Kapur said:

If they don't care about the rules, then why would the question about what the rules say even come up?

Well, obviously they wouldn't care, even if I do! 😮 

[TheGrandRascal]

On 2/14/2023 at 2:24 PM, Josh Martin said:

"If all members of the assembly are present, the members may agree to spontaneously hold a special meeting, without notice."

You were a tad hasty with that wording: What does "all members of the assembly" mean in this context?

The correct wording would be, "If all enrolled members are present at the same location at the same time, they may agree to spontsneously hold a special meeting, withot notice."

Again, that is NOT a rule I would recommend... but it would be interesting to see!

[Richard Brown]

@TheGrandRascalThe way you edited Mr. Martin's quote above is quite misleading and makes it look like Mr. Martin said something he did not say.  Here is the entire.... and correct.... statement by Mr. Martin:

On 2/14/2023 at 1:24 PM, Josh Martin said:

If the organization wishes to adopt a rule providing that "If all members of the assembly are present, the members may agree to spontaneously hold a special meeting, without notice," the organization is free to do so. But that is not the rule in RONR.

There is quite a difference.

[TheGrandRascal]

To Richard Brow (and Josh Martin):

Quote

The way you edited Mr. Martin's quote above is quite misleading and makes it look like Mr. Martin said something he did not say. 

Please note that I isolate YOUR quote above, only because it is the specific point I wish to reply to. I personally consider it wasteful of space and confusing to include an entire quotation when much of that quotation is not directly germane to the point I wish to discuss.

This was my attitude with Mr.Martin's response as well. It was never my intention to misquote him or to make it apoear he said something he did not. If, by trimning and quoting only the immediate text I am answering has caused confusion, or the disparagement of Mr. Martin, I most humbly and sincerely apologize.

My only intention was to point out that, as originally worded, the hypothetical rule that Mr. Martin provided was flawed; and to suggest an improved version. It was not my intent to miquote him. I only isolated the theoretical rule because that was the focus of my reply. I regret that my doing so has caused confusion.

Since my preferred procedure is objectionable, I shall hanceforth refrain from abbreviating quotes for relevance, and will quote them in their entirety. I trust that this will be satisfactory.

Edited February 15, 2023 at 04:03 AM by TheGrandRascal

[Weldon Merritt]

On 2/14/2023 at 9:01 PM, TheGrandRascal said:

Since my preferred procedure is objectionable, I shall hanceforth refrain from abbreviating quotes for relevance, and will quote them in their entirety. I trust that this will be satisfactory.

I'm no sure you need to go that far in every instance. Just be sure that what you do quote cannot be misconstrued. 

[laser158689]

I'm gonna shift off RONR and the example in the OP and add that in some states (CT certainly), any deliberative communication among a quorum of members of a public body can be considered a meeting.  If 4 members of a 7-person committee run into each other at a restaurant and discuss a topic related to the committee, it could be construed as a meeting.  An email back-and-forth amongst the committee members can be considered a meeting.  These scenarios then run afoul of an open meetings requirement for notice.

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/15/2023 at 5:18 PM, laser158689 said:

I'm gonna shift off RONR ...

Always a bad idea on this forum.

[laser158689]

@Dan Honemann  When is a non-meeting a meeting? 😉

[TheGrandRascal]

On 2/15/2023 at 5:18 PM, laser158689 said:

I'm gonna shift off RONR and the example in the OP and add that in some states (CT certainly), any deliberative communication among a quorum of members of a public body can be considered a meeting.  If 4 members of a 7-person committee run into each other at a restaurant and discuss a topic related to the committee, it could be construed as a meeting.  An email back-and-forth amongst the committee members can be considered a meeting.  These scenarios then run afoul of an open meetings requirement for notice.

I had something like that in mind...

That, plus the fact that in many corporate meetings it is often customary to waive meeting notice when all members are present.

 

N.B., I have quoted laser158689 in full, in order to avoid any possibility of making him or her appear to say anything that he or she did not say.

Edited February 16, 2023 at 04:47 AM by TheGrandRascal

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/15/2023 at 7:39 PM, laser158689 said:

@Dan Honemann  When is a non-meeting a meeting? 😉

When it's a jar?  No, wait, that's doors.

[J. J.]

One question that I would ask is if a special meeting is permitted. 

Edited February 17, 2023 at 10:51 PM by J. J.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/15/2023 at 11:42 PM, TheGrandRascal said:

N.B., I have quoted laser158689 in full, in order to avoid any possibility of making him or her appear to say anything that he or she did not say.

<eyeroll>

[TheGrandRascal]

To J.J.:

Quote

One question that I would ask is if a special meeting is permitted.

The answer to that is obviously either a "yes" or a "no," so based upon you own opinions you should be able to privide a followup response for either of these two possibilities. In other words, you can readily answer your own question:

"If special meetings ARE permitted, then I would say _________."

"If special meetings ARE NOT permitted, then my response would be _________."

[J. J.]

On 2/17/2023 at 9:53 PM, TheGrandRascal said:

To J.J.:

The answer to that is obviously either a "yes" or a "no," so based upon you own opinions you should be able to privide a followup response for either of these two possibilities. In other words, you can readily answer your own question:

"If special meetings ARE permitted, then I would say _________."

"If special meetings ARE NOT permitted, then my response would be _________."

If special meetings can be called by the group meeting, notice is not an issue, because there are no  absentees.