Open and Adjournment

[Guest Gwen Carlson]

Does a motion need to be made to open and adjourn a meeting?

[hmtcastle]

Does a motion need to be made to open and adjourn a meeting?

Never to call the meeting to order and sometimes (often?) not to adjourn it.

[David A Foulkes]

Does a motion need to be made to open and adjourn a meeting?

When the time of the meeting arrives, the Chair simply "calls the meeting to order". On with the show.

Typically, when all the business has been attended to, the Chair asks "anymore business?" and if no one speaks up, announces "The meeting is adjourned." A motion to adjourn is sometimes appropriate, but in most cases it is handled by "unanimous consent" (meaning no one objects) when the Chairs announces it.

More details can be found in THE book, RONR 10th Edition, a wonderful read.

[Gary c Tesser]

More details can be found in THE book, RONR 10th Edition, a wonderful read.

Let's set aside Foulkes's taste in literature again.

[Trina]

Does a motion need to be made to open and adjourn a meeting?

If you think about it, it's logically impossible to make a motion to open a meeting... since motions can only be made at meetings, and there is no meeting (in the parliamentary sense) before someone calls the meeting to order.

[Guest Joe Weintraut]

Never to call the meeting to order and sometimes (often?) not to adjourn it.

What happens if no motion is made to adjourn a meeting, does that leave a meeting "open or in-session" until a future meeting can be held and opened and closed properly?

[Dan Honemann]

What happens if no motion is made to adjourn a meeting, does that leave a meeting "open or in-session" until a future meeting can be held and opened and closed properly?

Of course not.

[hmtcastle]

What happens if no motion is made to adjourn a meeting, does that leave a meeting "open or in-session" until a future meeting can be held and opened and closed properly?

No. If no motion is made and everyone leaves, the meeting is over.

The way to continue it is to adopt a motion to "fix the time to which to adjourn".(before everyone leaves). See pp.234-239.

[Guest Guest]

No. If no motion is made and everyone leaves, the meeting is over.

The way to continue it is to adopt a motion to "fix the time to which to adjourn".(before everyone leaves). See pp.234-239.

Can I get a Rule reference for this from the book? My POA is trying to use "Failure to Adjourn" as grounds to a.) invalidate the results of an election held at this meeting, and b.) sidestep a notification clause in our Covenants, by claiming they do not need to provide proper notice of a new meeting, as the last meeting, which they did provide notice for, was never adjourned.

[George Mervosh]

RONR doesn't have a citation for every whacky idea people have to sidestep their rules. If they're intent on not following the ones you have and want to create ones out of the clear blue sky, I'd suggest litigaton.

Mr. Mt. has provided you with page numbers to show the only method to continue a meeting to another day. If they haven't followed that procedure, they properly can't make such a claim

[Guest Joe Weintraut]

RONR doesn't have a citation for every whacky idea people have to sidestep their rules. If they're intent on not following the ones you have and want to create ones out of the clear blue sky, I'd suggest litigaton.

Mr. Mt. has provided you with page numbers to show the only method to continue a meeting to another day. If they haven't followed that procedure, they properly can't make such a claim

Thank you for your help, much appreciated.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Can I get a Rule reference for this from the book? My POA is trying to use "Failure to Adjourn" as grounds to a.) invalidate the results of an election held at this meeting, and b.) sidestep a notification clause in our Covenants, by claiming they do not need to provide proper notice of a new meeting, as the last meeting, which they did provide notice for, was never adjourned.

You might point out that "failure to adjourn" is not a parliamentary term -- not to be found in RONR, TSC, Demeter's, or, likely, Gary's Rules (long promised and never produced; seemingly nice guys are so often like that). It might sound commanding and thunderous, but it's a bunch of nonsense. Here are two refutations.

1. On p. 115 is an example of how a main motion is routinely handled (cleverly disguised as an example of example format, so as to frustrate inadequately-prepared students taking their Registered Parliamentarian test). The assembly has adopted a motion to make a donation to the noble cause of, um, celebrating themselves. (Let's leave amusing irrelevancies out of the discussion, once I bring them up.) The chair directs the treasurer to write a check, and the secretary to write a cover letter and forward the contribution. Then the group goes on to other business.

Now it's a slow uneventful meeting, and Dave uses his full ten minutes of speechifying, using his charming animated computer illos to put off restiveness among the troops. The treasurer listens with half an ear as he writes the check, and his buddy the secretary tosses off the requisite note and prepares the envelope. During the next recess the secretary strolls down the hall to the office of the Centennial Celebration, whose secretary beams in appreciation and trots off to deposit the check in the bank on the spot. It's a done deal.

Two hours later, the meeting dissolves without formally adjourning. Business was over, everybody just got up and went across the street for a wee toddie. Would the purveyors of this pretentious but preposterous indignant "Failure To Ajourn!" garbage accuse the treasurer and secretary of, oh, Idunno, banking fraud??

2. According to RONR, an election is final when it is finished and the assembly goes on to the next item of business (an oversimplification) -- and the elected officers take office immediately, unless the bylaws or other rules say otherwise (p. 430). Many organizations prefer that they take office later -- such as, say, at the conclusion of the meeting at which they are elected, and they provide for this is their rules. But take the case of an election under the default rules of RONR. The new officers take their offices at the end of the elections, early in the meeting (p. 610, specifying conventions, but applicable generally), and proceed to function: the new president presides, the new treasurer starts madly cutting checks (as authorized, of course), the secretary (politely) takes over taking the minutes from the previous secretary, who graciously guides the new one into the job without a ripple. When the business of the meeting is over, everyone miraculously finds themselves in the bar across the street, without having mentioned adjourning. Are these righteous stalwarts of speudo-propriety going to say that all acts under the new president are invalid, all the written by the new secretary forgeries, all the notes taken by the new secretary brazen, egregious lies?

(I read this website to calm down.)

[Guest Nancy N.]

(How does a guest like me edit? Edits for my post of 9:50 PM:)

SEcond paragraph: "... directs the treasurer to write a check, and the secretary to write" would have been clearer as "directs the treasurer to write a check, and DIRECTS the secretary to write...."

Third paragraph: Dave is no one in particular, as far as all this goes, thought I did had in mind an admirable raconteur in my roman-a-clef way.

Last sentence: "... all acts under the new president are invalid, all the written by the new secretary forgeries ..." would be clearer as: "all acts OF THE ASSSEMBLY under the new president are invalid, all the CHECKS written by the new TREASURER forgeries ...."

(Got to be a better way.)1

[hmtcastle]

How does a guest like me edit?

A. Guests can't edit since there's no way of assuring that the editing guest is the same as the posting guest.

B. There are no guests like you.

[David A Foulkes]

(How does a guest like me edit?

It's a benefit of membership. So, ready to sign up?