Warning a special meeting

[Guest Sherri]

If in the bylaws it states a special meeting may be called at any time with written notice to the full membership at least ten days prior to the propesed date, only the business stated in the agenda accompanying the notice may be acted upon at a special meeting. What do you do if there is less written notice of the meeting and no attached agenda for the meeting?

[George Mervosh]

Any action taken at the meeting is null and void if the required number of days notice has not been given. RONR, p. 244(e).

[Guest Sherri]

Any action taken at the meeting is null and void if the required number of days notice has not been given. RONR, p. 244(e).

Thank you very much that is what I thought but our President said no big deal

[hmtcastle]

that is what I thought but our President said no big deal

If you think it might be time for a new president, see FAQ #20.

[David A Foulkes]

Guest_Sherri, if you're still around - - -

Bear in mind that the 10-day notice means the notice must be put in the mail at least ten days prior to the meeting date. If the meeting is called for October 11th, the notice must go in the mail no later than October 1st. How long it takes to get to the members is not really a controllable issue. So some members might not get it until four or five days ahead, depending on the mail service. See page 90, lines 5-9.

As for no "agenda" being included, that would seem to nullify the meeting in advance, as the "exact purpose of the meeting [emphasis added] must be mailed to all members a reasonable number of days in advance." (page 89, lines 15-17) What's reasonable is up to your organization to decide. But without the purpose included, there is a wee tad of a problem there.

[hmtcastle]

So some members might not get it until four or five days ahead, depending on the mail service.

And some members might never get it.

What's reasonable is up to your organization to decide.

Not if there's a 10-day requirement it's not.

[David A Foulkes]

What's reasonable is up to your organization to decide.

Not if there's a 10-day requirement it's not.

Correct. To clarify for Sherri - I was suggesting that RONR uses the word "reasonable", the interpretation of that being up to your organization, which has already apparently decided that 10 days is "reasonable." Any suggestion that it could be interpreted otherwise was unintentional on my part. If your membership feels 10 days is not reasonable, the bylaws would need to be amended accordingly. For now, 10 days it shall be.

[Guest Sherri]

So I just speak up when the meeting is called to order and state that anything discussed or decided at the meeting is not binding and we will have to hold another meeting that has been properly warned as the current bylaws state in order to properly make any binding decisions. I am pretty sure the meeting is going to go on and decisions are going to be made what do I do then? I know I can request another special meeting but what if the other directors don't go along with it and say it has already been decided.

The meeting is set for Sept 10 my letter is post marked Sept 2.

I am very thankful for any help I can get.

[hmtcastle]

I am pretty sure the meeting is going to go on and decisions are going to be made what do I do then?

If this is a board meeting (you mention "directors") and the board is unwilling to follow the rules, you can take your case to the general membership.

See also Official Interpretations 2006-12 and 2006-13.

See also FAQ #20.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Some of the opposition that Sherri is likely to encounter will be from members who took the time and trouble to go to the meeting, and don't want their time and trouble to be wasted. It might help if Sherri and her allies contact as many members as possible, and the sooner the better, letting them know the meeting is not legit, and they maybe should not bother going, and pass the word to their friends not to go either.

This of course risks a quorum managing to show up, all of them opponents of Sherri's, and free to run amok. Then all fandom will be plunged into war again (I read about Astounding Stories of Super-Science a few days ago) to get a later meeting to declare the actions of Sept. 10 null -- and, depending, then go and adopt those actions anyway, or ratify them. And you think crocodiles are trouble.

[Chris Harrison]

Some of the opposition that Sherri is likely to encounter will be from members who took the time and trouble to go to the meeting, and don't want their time and trouble to be wasted. It might help if Sherri and her allies contact as many members as possible, and the sooner the better, letting them know the meeting is not legit, and they maybe should not bother going, and pass the word to their friends not to go either.

This of course risks a quorum managing to show up, all of them opponents of Sherri's, and free to run amok. Then all fandom will be plunged into war again (I read about Astounding Stories of Super-Science a few days ago) to get a later meeting to declare the actions of Sept. 10 null -- and, depending, then go and adopt those actions anyway, or ratify them. And you think crocodiles are trouble.

It also might not hurt for Sherri to take a belt and suspenders approach to this and not only follow Nancy N.'s advice but also go to the meeting and raise that Point of Order if a quorum does show up. That way if the assembly decides to proceed anyway Sherri probably will have more ammo to raise a p. 244 (e) Point of Order at the next meeting and overturn any adverse ruling upon Appeal.

[David A Foulkes]

It also might not hurt for Sherri to take a belt and suspenders approach to this and not only follow Nancy N.'s advice but also go to the meeting and raise that Point of Order if a quorum does show up. That way if the assembly decides to proceed anyway Sherri probably will have more ammo to raise a p. 244 (e) Point of Order at the next meeting and overturn any adverse ruling upon Appeal.

I'd agree that action is better than inaction, especially at the risk of the opposing forces mustering a quorum and having at it. The problem with the Point-of-Order/Appeal approach is that those are remedies employed to fix an error, but if those perpetrating the error are doing so willfully and with obvious disregard to the "rules", it is questionable if not doubtful they will then abide by these corrective measures. That said, all you can do is do what you must. You do what you must do, and you do it well. - B. Dylan

Bon chance, ma Sherri