meeting adjourned with open motion

[Guest Don]

our recent meet was adjourned by the president due to unruly behavior in his opinion. there was an open and seconded motion on the floor at the time. at the following meeting it was announced that no new or old business would be allowed only the business of nominations for the upcoming election. Our board seems to make up rules as they go. wouldn't nominations be new business? and ignoring the open motion be wrong as well? what remedy can be taken.

[Joshua Katz]

On 12/6/2023 at 7:08 PM, Guest Don said:

Our board seems to make up rules as they go.

Agreed.

On 12/6/2023 at 7:08 PM, Guest Don said:

what remedy can be taken.

Sounds like, if the organization wants the board to follow the rules of parliamentary procedure, it needs a new board.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/6/2023 at 7:08 PM, Guest Don said:

our recent meet was adjourned by the president due to unruly behavior in his opinion. there was an open and seconded motion on the floor at the time. at the following meeting it was announced that no new or old business would be allowed only the business of nominations for the upcoming election. Our board seems to make up rules as they go. wouldn't nominations be new business? and ignoring the open motion be wrong as well? what remedy can be taken.

Since this appears to be a meeting of the general assembly, and not a board meeting, who cares what the board says?  Unless your bylaws say otherwise, the board can't make up rules-- as they go, or any other way--that the assembly is obliged to follow. It is the assembly that issues instructions that the board must follow.

The board is not in charge of membership meetings, especially not election meetings. 

The board may need to be reminded who's in charge.  Since you have an election coming up, it might be quicker just to elect a new board that knows its role, rather than trying to educate the current one.

 

[Josh Martin]

On 12/6/2023 at 6:08 PM, Guest Don said:

our recent meet was adjourned by the president due to unruly behavior in his opinion. there was an open and seconded motion on the floor at the time.

This was improper. It is in order to adjourn while a motion is pending, however, the chair can only unilaterally adjourn the meeting in the following circumstances:

• The assembly has completed its entire order of business and, when the chair asks if there is any further new business, there is no response (obviously, this one is not applicable, since a motion was pending)
• The assembly has previously established a time for adjournment and that time has been reached
• There is an emergency, such as a fire or riot, and it would endanger the safety of the members to take the time to vote on adjournment ("unruly behavior" seems to fall quite a bit short of this)

In all other cases, adjournment requires a motion and second. The motion to adjourn is not debatable and requires a majority vote for adoption.

On 12/6/2023 at 6:08 PM, Guest Don said:

at the following meeting it was announced that no new or old business would be allowed only the business of nominations for the upcoming election.

This was also improper. If this is a regular meeting, New Business is in order. Unfinished Business and General Orders (there is no such thing as "old business") is also a part of the regular order of business. If this meeting was within a quarterly interval of the previous meeting, there was at least one item of unfinished business - the motion which was pending at the time the meeting adjourned.

On 12/6/2023 at 6:08 PM, Guest Don said:

wouldn't nominations be new business?

No. Nominations and elections for positions provided for in the bylaws fall under Special Orders.

On 12/6/2023 at 6:08 PM, Guest Don said:

and ignoring the open motion be wrong as well?

Assuming this is a regular meeting that was held within a quarterly interval of the previous meeting, yes, it would be improper to ignore that motion. It should be the first item of business under Unfinished Business.

On 12/6/2023 at 6:08 PM, Guest Don said:

what remedy can be taken.

See RONR (12th ed.) 62:2-15, "Remedies for Abuse of Authority by the Chair in a Meeting."

See also FAQ #20. It seems to me the organization may need a new President.
 

On 12/6/2023 at 6:11 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Sounds like, if the organization wants the board to follow the rules of parliamentary procedure, it needs a new board.

On 12/7/2023 at 12:23 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Since this appears to be a meeting of the general assembly, and not a board meeting, who cares what the board says?  Unless your bylaws say otherwise, the board can't make up rules-- as they go, or any other way--that the assembly is obliged to follow. It is the assembly that issues instructions that the board must follow.

The board is not in charge of membership meetings, especially not election meetings. 

The board may need to be reminded who's in charge.  Since you have an election coming up, it might be quicker just to elect a new board that knows its role, rather than trying to educate the current one.

I will say that, while it seems pretty clear the President has been doing a poor job, it is not clear to me at this time what role, if any, the rest of the board has played in these issues. While the OP has stated that "Our board seems to make up rules as they go," it's not clear to me what this means, or how the board has been involved.

It may well be that there are issues with the rest of the board as well, but I do not see evidence presented of that at this time.

[Joshua Katz]

I had taken the question to concern a board meeting. Either way, the meeting body seems relatively uninterested in the rules of parliamentary procedure, too, as these egregious actions seem to be going unchallenged.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/7/2023 at 8:17 AM, Joshua Katz said:

I had taken the question to concern a board meeting. Either way, the meeting body seems relatively uninterested in the rules of parliamentary procedure, too, as these egregious actions seem to be going unchallenged.

So did I, originally, but the fact that an election was to take place, and it seemed to be the case that "the board" was making up rules for the election, I changed my assumption.  It's not unheard of for a board to consider itself "in charge" of the membership and start issuing directives.  While it's possible the bylaws might authorize such actions, it's not the usual case if RONR applies.  In fact it's the exact opposite.