Guest Lakewood Posted July 13, 2010 at 12:54 AM Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 at 12:54 AM We had an open Board meeting fo the members. The meeting was closed for nominations for election and meeting was adjourned. All memebrs attending had left and one asked to reopen the meeting because he forgot to nominate a member. A quaorm was present. The President voted yes, 2 abstained and one voted NO. Memebr was nominated. Is that legal or proper procedure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted July 13, 2010 at 01:05 AM Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 at 01:05 AM ... meeting was adjourned. All memebrs attending had left and one asked to reopen the meeting because he forgot to nominate a member. A quaorm was present. The President voted yes, 2 abstained and one voted NO. Memebr was nominated. Is that legal or proper procedureNo, the meeting can't be 'restarted' after adjournment, whether or not a quorum's worth of members was still hanging around. The voting (presumably on the issue of reopening the meeting ?) is irrelevant, although 1 'yes' and 1 'no' would have defeated whatever was being voted on anyway. I'm not clear on what the members thought they were voting on or on what they thought the result of their vote was. Actions taken at the improper meeting (the after-adjournment meeting, that is) are null and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 13, 2010 at 01:36 AM Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 at 01:36 AM We had an open Board meeting fo the members.What does that mean? It can't mean open board meeting for the members of the board (because that wouldn't make sense.) So, I'll guess that you mean the board meeting was open to members of the society who aren't board members. The meeting was closed for nominations for election Okay, I'm guessing, again. Nominations were closed? Are you saying the nonmembers of the board, who don't have a right to be there, were making nominations? Once again, we're back to not making sense. and meeting was adjourned. That makes sense! All memebrs attending had left and one asked to reopen the meeting because he forgot to nominate a member.What!? All left? One asked to reopen? I thought they all left. Assuming he didn't leave, who is he asking? Someone else didn't leave?Anyway, no one (whether he had left or not) can "reopen" a meeting after adjournment because someone forgot to nominate a member. A quaorm was present. Holy cow! Did any leave? The President voted yes, 2 abstained and one voted NO. Memebr was nominated. I'm afraid to guess on this one. Was this voting to "reopen" the meeting... or was this voting to nominate the member? You can't vote outside a meeting to "reopen" a meeting (or for anything else), and nominations don't require a vote. In any event, the vote you mentioned isn't sufficient to pass anything. Is that legal or proper procedure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted July 13, 2010 at 01:50 AM Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 at 01:50 AM Holy cow! Did any leave?ROTFLMAOPMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 13, 2010 at 11:14 AM Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 at 11:14 AM Even if no members have left, a meeting cannot be reopened after it has been declared adjourned (except under extremely limited circumstances, as to which see RONR, 10th ed., p. 232, l. 4-11). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 13, 2010 at 05:15 PM Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 at 05:15 PM What!? All left? One asked to reopen? I thought they all left. Assuming he didn't leave, who is he asking? Someone else didn't leave?I suspect that when the poster said that "All members attending had left," he was referring to members of the general membership, not members of the board. It doesn't affect the parliamentary principles at work here, but it does clear up the logical dilemma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 13, 2010 at 11:14 PM Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 at 11:14 PM It doesn't affect the parliamentary principles at work here, but it does clear up the logical dilemma.I was rather enjoying the logical dilemma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.