Abrupt Adjournment

[Guest Brian]

The situation: After a rather contentious discussion and the meeting running an hour late the chair announced the agenda was complete (which technically it was) and adjourned the meeting. As he stood up one member made a motion to continue. Many members were rising to their feet and quickly the chair ruled the motion died for lack of a second.

The chair has now twice used the justification for abrupt adjournment that the agenda was complete.

My understanding of The Rules are the following:

1. The presiding officer can call for a motion to adjourn, obtain a second, and take a vote assuring the body is in agreement.

2. The proper language for the chair is, "Is there any further business?" and then wait an appropriate interval before adjourning without a motion.

Any other thoughts?

Thanks

[Kim Goldsworthy]

1. The presiding officer can call for a motion to adjourn, obtain a second, and take a vote assuring the body is in agreement.

2. The proper language for the chair is, "Is there any further business?" and then wait an appropriate interval before adjourning without a motion.

Yes. Both are correct.

Since your chair is not following the rules, you'll have to do something other than "adopt a rule", since the problem isn't rule-related, but "behavior-related", or "patience-related", i.e., psychological.

RONR has no pages dedicated to psychology or behaviorism.

[David A Foulkes]

The situation: After a rather contentious discussion and the meeting running an hour late the chair announced the agenda was complete (which technically it was) and adjourned the meeting. As he stood up one member made a motion to continue. Many members were rising to their feet and quickly the chair ruled the motion died for lack of a second.

The chair has now twice used the justification for abrupt adjournment that the agenda was complete.

My understanding of The Rules are the following:

1. The presiding officer can call for a motion to adjourn, obtain a second, and take a vote assuring the body is in agreement.

2. The proper language for the chair is, "Is there any further business?" and then wait an appropriate interval before adjourning without a motion.

Any other thoughts?

Thanks

Sounds to me like the Chair does not have control of the meeting, and in frustration simply says "that's it, I'm done". Not sure if this "contentious discussion" was following rules of debate, or if the meeting ran an hour past a defined time of adjournment set forth somewhere in the rules, nor why (if the agenda is complete) an adjournment would be considered abrupt. If business is done, the meeting is too, and I would not term that as abrupt.

So, what's going on with your Chair?

[Trina]

The situation: After a rather contentious discussion and the meeting running an hour late the chair announced the agenda was complete (which technically it was) and adjourned the meeting. As he stood up one member made a motion to continue. Many members were rising to their feet and quickly the chair ruled the motion died for lack of a second.

The chair has now twice used the justification for abrupt adjournment that the agenda was complete.

My understanding of The Rules are the following:

1. The presiding officer can call for a motion to adjourn, obtain a second, and take a vote assuring the body is in agreement.

2. The proper language for the chair is, "Is there any further business?" and then wait an appropriate interval before adjourning without a motion.

Any other thoughts?

Thanks

Your thoughts are correct, of course, that the chair does not normally have unilateral power to adjourn a meeting. Rather than making a motion to continue the meeting (which doesn't make sense, since the meeting IS continuing until it is properly adjourned), it would have been more proper to raise a point of order that the motion to adjourn had not been seconded, or that it should be voted on by the assembly before taking effect.

In practice, this probably requires some behind-the-scenes education of the membership, so that people know enough not to just get up and head obediently for the doors as soon as the chair utters the word 'adjourn.'

The completion of the agenda is irrelevant (assuming this was the typical agenda presented to the assembly, but not officially adopted); and the motion to adjourn is not debatable anyway, so, strictly speaking, no one should be giving their reasons for or against adjourning.

edited to add:

I'm curious, was there a motion before the assembly during the extended period of 'contentious discussion'? If not, that's probably a separate problem that your organization may need to address...

[George Mervosh]

The situation: After a rather contentious discussion and the meeting running an hour late

Any other thoughts?

Thanks

David touched on this, but explain exactly why and how you know it ran 1 hour late? Was a time set for adjournment?

[Guest Brian]

Thanks for the perspectives and information.

The schedule for the agenda is an estimate set by the chair and is helpful so guests know an approximate time to be available for the Board. The BOD does not take action on the schedule nor have rules regarding the schedule. Our common practice is to deliberate beyond the scheduled time, we do not close off debate. One of the strengths of our BOD is that all members are provided the opportunity to speak.

[Rob Elsman]

It is hard for me to understand how the chairman could prophesy about these matters, and I recommend that the practice be dropped.

[Rob Elsman]

It is hard for me to understand how the chairman could prophesy about these matters, and I recommend that the practice be dropped.

Oops! I meant my reply to subsist to that of Brian of 9:20AM, but I hit the wrong button.

[hmtcastle]

I meant my reply to subsist to that of Brian of 9:20AM, but I hit the wrong button.

Isn't that what the "Delete" function is for?