Special Meeting Location Change

[CornelR]

A group send out a special meeting notice appropriate to their bylaws.  Subsequent to that, they discovered that the room was not available for the meeting.  Another room has come available in another building next door 70 yards away.  Can they simply direct people to that room or do they need to abandon that meeting and send out notice for a new meeting using the appropriate language and time? In other words do they need to schedule a new special meeting a week out.  This meeting was scheduled a week out originally but the change of location only became evident yesterday.  The meeting is the day after tomorrow.  Can they have it with someone directing traffic? Or again, do they need to reschedule it for a week out.

Edited October 3, 2023 at 08:13 PM by CornelR

[Rob Elsman]

"A group" does not send out a call of a special meeting.  It is the responsibility of the secretary to send the call at the expense of the society.  I have no idea what the bylaws say, but I have to wonder if the call is validly sent at all, since "a group" would not ordinarily have the authority to act in an official capacity in this way.

[Josh Martin]

On 10/3/2023 at 3:12 PM, CornelR said:

A group send out a special meeting notice appropriate to their bylaws.

Please clarify exactly what your bylaws say on this matter and who exactly sent this notice.

On 10/3/2023 at 3:12 PM, CornelR said:

Subsequent to that, they discovered that the room was not available for the meeting.  Another room has come available in another building next door 70 yards away.  Can they simply direct people to that room or do they need to abandon that meeting and send out notice for a new meeting using the appropriate language and time? In other words do they need to schedule a new special meeting a week out.  This meeting was scheduled a week out originally but the change of location only became evident yesterday.  The meeting is the day after tomorrow.  Can they have it with someone directing traffic? Or again, do they need to reschedule it for a week out.

Assuming for the sake of argument the call was proper...

As a parliamentary matter, should be done is for someone to show up at the proper meeting location (or as close as is feasible), call the meeting to order, and (without objection) announce that the meeting is adjourned to the new location.

As a practical matter, yes, it would be prudent to send out notice of the new location and have something at the old location to inform people of the new location, whether that's a person or a sign posted on the door.

[Gary Novosielski]

Without getting in to the fine points of calling special meetings, I can relate a similar event, where a regular meeting of an elected school board, which was regularly scheduled to take place in the high school cafeteria had to be moved to the library because of a plumbing-related misadventure, within a time frame that would not allow proper notice.

At the scheduled meeting time, a quorum of members and the board secretary (who does not count toward quorum) was called to order standing outside the entrance to the cafeteria, and moved to adjourn to a different time and place, i.e. the library, in five minutes.

Strictly speaking, a quorum would not have been necessary for this motion, but to remove any question, it was easy enough to obtain.  We also posted a written note on the door, which, while not strictly required, seemed in line with common sense.

Edited October 5, 2023 at 06:27 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 10/5/2023 at 2:26 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Strictly speaking, a quorum would not have been necessary for this motion, but to remove any question, it was easy enough to obtain. 

The presence of a quorum seems irrelevant, because a motion to adjourn does not require the presence of a quorum, whether one is speaking strictly or friendlily. If the maneuver was valid, it was valid without a quorum. And if it was invalid, any absentee whose rights were violated could make a fuss about it. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/6/2023 at 7:44 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

The presence of a quorum seems irrelevant, because a motion to adjourn does not require the presence of a quorum, whether one is speaking strictly or friendlily. If the maneuver was valid, it was valid without a quorum. And if it was invalid, any absentee whose rights were violated could make a fuss about it. 

Yes, I don't disagree, but given the choice of convening with or without a quorum we simply chose with.  All the "absentees" were already assembled in the Library, so they were in no position to make a fuss without looking silly.