SPECIAL MEETING

[Guest Ann]

If the majority of the voting members of an organization agree at a meeting to change the time of the next meeting and proper notice (e-mail and posting in the building) is it legal? The only place it references this in our bylaws is under the President's duties: "The President may call special meetings of this organization at such times as he/she may deem necessary or on the written request of five (5) active members." It also states under Secretary duties: He/she shall notify all active member of special meetings and social functions as such notices that maybe directed by the President."

We are currently revising our bylaws and wondering if this change should be included in them??

[Kim Goldsworthy]

If the majority of the voting members of an organization agree at a meeting to change the time of the next meeting and proper notice (e-mail and posting in the building) is it legal?

"... e-mail ... posting in the building ..."?

No, if Robert's Rules of Order applies.

You cannot notify any member via email, nor by a single posting.

As always, if your rules do allow for such notification, then the default prohibition in RONR will not apply.

The only place it references this in our bylaws is under the President's duties: "The President may call special meetings of this organization at such times as he/she may deem necessary or on the written request of five (5) active members."

Okay.

Then notify 100% of the members via mail, or its equivalent (e.g., courier, face-to-face delivery, etc.).

As always, if your rules do allow for such alternate method(s) of notification, then the default prohibition in RONR will not apply.

It also states under Secretary duties: He/she shall notify all active member of special meetings and social functions as such notices that maybe directed by the President."

Okay.

See above for a warning on notification.

We are currently revising our bylaws and wondering if this change should be included in them?

Yes.

Else there will be an ambiguity regarding whether indirect notification, like e-mail, like a single posting, is allowable.

Caveat: You comment, "... single building...", suggests that you are homeowners association (HOA).

If so, there may well be some state laws which already apply regarding a number of default methods of calling meetings and of notifying members.

If such rules are in place, the your question may not be on the topic of "Robert's Rules of Order" but on the applicable laws of your state's HOA code.

Just my hunch.

[Chris Harrison]

If the majority of the voting members of an organization agree at a meeting to change the time of the next meeting and proper notice (e-mail and posting in the building) is it legal? The only place it references this in our bylaws is under the President's duties: "The President may call special meetings of this organization at such times as he/she may deem necessary or on the written request of five (5) active members." It also states under Secretary duties: He/she shall notify all active member of special meetings and social functions as such notices that maybe directed by the President."

We are currently revising our bylaws and wondering if this change should be included in them??

"The President may call special meetings of this organization at such times as he/she may deem necessary or on the written request of five (5) active members."

If the bylaws say that the President sets the time of a Special Meeting then only the President can set the time of a Special Meeting. The members don't have the authority (under the bylaws-at least from what you cited) to change the time of the meeting. However, I question whether you are really talking about a regularly scheduled meeting rather than a Special Meeting.

[Trina]

If the majority of the voting members of an organization agree at a meeting to change the time of the next meeting and proper notice (e-mail and posting in the building) is it legal? The only place it references this in our bylaws is under the President's duties: "The President may call special meetings of this organization at such times as he/she may deem necessary or on the written request of five (5) active members." It also states under Secretary duties: He/she shall notify all active member of special meetings and social functions as such notices that maybe directed by the President."

We are currently revising our bylaws and wondering if this change should be included in them??

If the bylaws say that the President sets the time of a Special Meeting then only the President can set the time of a Special Meeting. The members don't have the authority (under the bylaws-at least from what you cited) to change the time of the meeting. However, I question whether you are really talking about a regularly scheduled meeting rather than a Special Meeting.

I agree -- Ann, is the 'next meeting' you mention actually a special meeting for which notice has already gone out? Or just the next regular meeting of the organization?

In either case, though, since you use the word 'change', that strongly suggests that a time for the meeting had already been set and communicated to the members. RONR has no mechanism for rescheduling a meeting. Any such mechanism would have to come from your bylaws. The language you quote only refers to special meetings, and only to calling a special meeting in the first place (it says nothing about changing the time for a meeting that's already been called).

If you want the flexibility to reschedule meetings, you could certainly include a process to do so in your revised bylaws. Think it through carefully, though -- is the process fair to all members, including absent members? could there be unanticipated consequences?

[Guest Ann]

"... e-mail ... posting in the building ..."?

No, if Robert's Rules of Order applies.

You cannot notify any member via email, nor by a single posting.

As always, if your rules do allow for such notification, then the default prohibition in RONR will not apply.

Okay.

Then notify 100% of the members via mail, or its equivalent (e.g., courier, face-to-face delivery, etc.).

As always, if your rules do allow for such alternate method(s) of notification, then the default prohibition in RONR will not apply.

Okay.

See above for a warning on notification.

Yes.

Else there will be an ambiguity regarding whether indirect notification, like e-mail, like a single posting, is allowable.

Caveat: You comment, "... single building...", suggests that you are homeowners association (HOA).

If so, there may well be some state laws which already apply regarding a number of default methods of calling meetings and of notifying members.

If such rules are in place, the your question may not be on the topic of "Robert's Rules of Order" but on the applicable laws of your state's HOA code.

Just my hunch.

We are a volunteer ambulance association and we meet in a firehall, i.e. "building". I believe we will be adopting something specific in the bylaws this time around regarding special meetings/meeting times. Thank you for your help.

[Guest Ann]

If the bylaws say that the President sets the time of a Special Meeting then only the President can set the time of a Special Meeting. The members don't have the authority (under the bylaws-at least from what you cited) to change the time of the meeting. However, I question whether you are really talking about a regularly scheduled meeting rather than a Special Meeting.

The President did set the new meeting time of the regularly scheduled meeting for the next month. The members attending that meeting agreed to the time change for the next month. Every effort was made to notify members of the time made. But it was by e-mail and by posting on the bulletin board in the building.

[Guest Ann]

I agree -- Ann, is the 'next meeting' you mention actually a special meeting for which notice has already gone out? Or just the next regular meeting of the organization?

In either case, though, since you use the word 'change', that strongly suggests that a time for the meeting had already been set and communicated to the members. RONR has no mechanism for rescheduling a meeting. Any such mechanism would have to come from your bylaws. The language you quote only refers to special meetings, and only to calling a special meeting in the first place (it says nothing about changing the time for a meeting that's already been called).

If you want the flexibility to reschedule meetings, you could certainly include a process to do so in your revised bylaws. Think it through carefully, though -- is the process fair to all members, including absent members? could there be unanticipated consequences?

The "next meeting" was actually the regularly scheduled meeting for which the notice had gone out. It is regularly scheduled for 8 p.m. and the president changed starting time to 7 p.m. We will be adding new language to the bylaws regarding meeting time changes. Thank you.

[hmtcastle]

It is regularly scheduled for 8 p.m. and the president changed starting time to 7 p.m.

As you know by now, he can't do that (and you might ask him why he thought he could). Any business conducted prior to 8:00 pm is null and void.

[Trina]

As you know by now, he can't do that (and you might ask him why he thought he could). Any business conducted prior to 8:00 pm is null and void.

Well, yes... but, in the interest of common sense, it's worth pointing out that the mechanism for formally invalidating the business conducted prior to 8:00 is for someone to raise a point of order at a future meeting. For example, someone who showed up at 8:00 (going by the originally scheduled time) might have wanted to participate in the earlier business, and might be inclined to raise a point of order. However, it the assembly just did routine and uncontroversial stuff between 7:00 and 8:00, no one may bother to point out the 'null and voidness' of what was done (although the right to raise such a point of order persists indefinitely into the future in such a situation (RONR p. 244).

[hmtcastle]

in the interest of common sense, it's worth pointing out that the mechanism for formally invalidating the business conducted prior to 8:00 is for someone to raise a point of order at a future meeting.

Granted. But I think it's worth making that point of order in order to reign in the president. Or next time he'll move up the start of the meeting by two hours. Then a day. Then he'll start canceling meetings. Disregarding the rules "as long as nobody complains" is a very slippery slope.

[ggarland]

It was stated that notification could not be accomplished by e-mail. Can someone explain why?

Our by-laws state that special meetings may be called for business that must be dealt with before the next normal meeting. It specifies that an announcement to the assembly must be made and all regular attending members must be notified by mail.

We recently notified members by e-mail, and placed a delivered receipt, and read receipt request on the message. It was done that way to have accountability that the message was delivered and opened by the recipient, and to save the cost of postage. Since the by-laws were written many years before the invention of e-mail, it was discussed and decided that the intent of making sure all required members were notified could be accomplished with e-mail, faster and cheaper. We didn't realize their would be a problem with using e-mail instead of postal carrier.

[hmtcastle]

Since the by-laws were written many years before the invention of e-mail, it was discussed and decided that the intent of making sure all required members were notified could be accomplished with e-mail, faster and cheaper. We didn't realize their would be a problem with using e-mail instead of postal carrier.

Your organization is free to interpret the word "mail" however it wishes, though, once having made that interpretation, you should amend your bylaws to incorporate it.

The consensus here, I believe, is that when RONR says "mail", it means postal mail. But the 11th Edition is imminent so stay tuned.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

It was stated that notification could not be accomplished by e-mail. Can someone explain why?

...

It specifies that an announcement to the assembly must be made and all regular attending members must be notified by mail.

We recently notified members by e-mail, and placed a delivered receipt, and read receipt request on the message.

That's good enough for me.

E-mail, as you know, has a questionable reliability factor, and, except for "return receipt" options in some mail client software, has no feedback option.

RONR, I think, should be read with the emphasis on "delivery" more so than "method thereof".

E.g., giving a 10 year old boy a stack of flyers, and instructing the child, "Now, listen, knock on every door on every floor of the apartment complex, and make sure a human being answers the door and takes a flyer." - That would so woefully inadequate, despite the personal eye-contact and hand-to-hand contact.

So, it ain't just eyeball-level confirmation and manual confirmation, which should be the criteria.

UPS, Fed Ex, DHL, and the like, should not dismissed lightly, just because they are not part of the federal government, and therefore are not part of the "mail system" as the term may be applied specifically or technically.

[Gary c Tesser]

Brother Gary should know that there's a faction (disclosure: I'm in it) that disagrees vehemently with those who say that e-mail notification, in cases where Robert's Rules says "mail," does not qualify.

Mr Goldsworthy says, "E-mail, as you know, has a questionable reliability factor, and, except for "return receipt" options in some mail client software, has no feedback option."

Well gee. this in contrast to the unerring reliability of postal mail. The USPS has an unquestionable reliability factor, Kim? Whether you buy the "return receipt" software at the post office or not.

How about, postal mail that employs conveyance in vehicles that use internal-combustion engines burning some kind of petroleum like um, "gasoline" is not valid, per Robert's Rules, unless the bylaws specifically authorize it? -- because, you know, General Robert didn't know about this technology?

... I have the vague idea that a couple decades ago, Britain yoked the incoming electronic communications technologies to the extant hard-copy, analog postal system. Maybe mostly for revenue reasons. Even if they didn't, suppose they did. So suppose the US "Postal" "Service" had pretty much done the same, and accepting for the argument that the USA is the centre of the universe, which probably most of the universe will not easily swallow but will tolerate for the duration of the argument because I ask them to, nicely. Do we then arbitrarily swear by the Postal Service's frequently inept paper delivery but contrive to reject the Postal Service's electronic equivalent?

Kim. The suggestion that RONR emphasizes delivery is just plain unreal. As far as RONR is concerned, the issue of conveying the notice is settled when the secretary dumps the envelopes in the mailbox. Should some teenage jerk then stroll by and drop a firecracker into the mailbox, incinerating everything in it, RONR shrugs dismissively. (Watch Robert De Niro do it in, I think, "Mean Streets," around 1973, directed by Brian De Palma or Martin Scorsese, you can look it up.) Absent a meteor strike or nuclear bomb's EMP, that's not going to be a problem with e-mail.

I said a few months ago, and stand by it, that if e-mail were current during General Robert's time -- an engineer, an army officer, a committed Baptist, a person by nature and training inclined towards practicality, fairness, and justice (the last four words on p. 288 of RONR, 10th Ed., would not be improper to him) -- he would think they're all crazy.

(Brother Gary, you've kept me up till almost 3 AM, I hope your beer budget is generous.)

[Edited]

[ggarland]

Mr. Tesser,

I appreciate your comments .... and I appreciate the fact that it took you until almost 3:00AM to complete your post, however, just like General Robert, I too am a "committed Baptist" and therefore don't have a beer budget either generous or otherwise. I will be more than glad to give you a bottle of water.

[hmtcastle]

I said a few months ago, and stand by it, that if e-mail were current during General Robert's time . . . he would think they're all crazy.

Well, when the imminent 11th Edition is released, we'll see how crazy it is.