meetings

[Guest Greg]

we have a monthly meeting on the same day and time. we needed to change the day, our by-laws require us to post in newspaper, we held meeting and conducted business then adjourned. after meeting it was discovered meeting change was never posted in paper. Was the meeting legal?

[Robert B Fish]

we have a monthly meeting on the same day and time. we needed to change the day, our by-laws require us to post in newspaper, we held meeting and conducted business then adjourned. after meeting it was discovered meeting change was never posted in paper. Was the meeting legal?

No. If proper notice of a meeting as required in your bylaws was not given, all business at the meeting is null and void. However, those actions could be ratified at a future, properly called and noticed meeting.

-Bob

[Guest Greg]

Can the meeting be called for that reason

[Gary Novosielski]

we have a monthly meeting on the same day and time. we needed to change the day, our by-laws require us to post in newspaper, we held meeting and conducted business then adjourned. after meeting it was discovered meeting change was never posted in paper. Was the meeting legal?

Legal isn't something we get involved in, as we are (for the most part) not lawyers, nor do we play them on YouTube.

According to RONR, if you do not properly meet your notice requirements, business transacted at that meeting is null and void.

But if your notice requirements include posting in the paper, I am going to guess that you are a publicly elected/appointed or quasi-public body, and if that's true, you have state Sunshine Laws or other statutes or codes to consider, any of which would supersede what's in RONR (and likely require the assistance of one of those aforementioned lawyers to parse out).

[David A Foulkes]

we have a monthly meeting on the same day and time. we needed to change the day, our by-laws require us to post in newspaper, we held meeting and conducted business then adjourned. after meeting it was discovered meeting change was never posted in paper. Was the meeting legal?

Did the appropriate person notify the paper of the meeting? Is there any record of that? Can you prove that you (the organization, that is) "contracted" with them (the newspaper, that is) to post your notice?

I ask because if the answer to most or all of my questions is yes, I'd suggest there might be reason to think the meeting was "legal". Notice requirements often dictate mailing something to the membership by a certain date, and all the organization can be responsible for is getting the letters postmarked by the last notice date. After that, it is not responsible if the mail gets lost or stolen, or the member does not receive it for any reason, nor if they don't bother to open/read it, and so on.

So, if the newspaper was properly "contracted" to post your meeting notice, and THEY failed to do so, watcha gonna do? You did all you could. The fact that you held the meeting tells me there was at least some other means of notice provided beyond the newspaper posting, so it clearly wasn't the only means of notice.

[Josh Martin]

Did the appropriate person notify the paper of the meeting? Is there any record of that? Can you prove that you (the organization, that is) "contracted" with them (the newspaper, that is) to post your notice?

I ask because if the answer to most or all of my questions is yes, I'd suggest there might be reason to think the meeting was "legal". Notice requirements often dictate mailing something to the membership by a certain date, and all the organization can be responsible for is getting the letters postmarked by the last notice date. After that, it is not responsible if the mail gets lost or stolen, or the member does not receive it for any reason, nor if they don't bother to open/read it, and so on.

So, if the newspaper was properly "contracted" to post your meeting notice, and THEY failed to do so, watcha gonna do? You did all you could. The fact that you held the meeting tells me there was at least some other means of notice provided beyond the newspaper posting, so it clearly wasn't the only means of notice.

I'm not sure the RONR rules regarding sending notice by mail has any bearing on sending notice through a newspaper, and as Mr. Novosielski notes, it sounds like a legal requirement to me.

[David A Foulkes]

I'm not sure the RONR rules regarding sending notice by mail has any bearing on sending notice through a newspaper, and as Mr. Novosielski notes, it sounds like a legal requirement to me.

But whether RONR or bylaw rules, if mailing notice by a certain date is required, all the organization can be held responsible for is putting those letters in the mail (or perhaps bringing to the post office). That is, they can not be responsible for "delivery of the notice" or even the reading of it by members. Same would go for notice in the newspaper, as ordered by the bylaws. Nothing can assure the newspaper will print it, or that members will read it. All the organization can be responsible for is "delivery of the notice" to the newspaper (by whatever appropriate means) in adequate advance of the meeting so as to be printed by the notice date. If the newspaper fails to print the notice in a "timely fashion", the organization has done its part best as it can.

Nothing in the facts presented so far indicate anything but bylaw requirements are in play here, so until we hear otherwise, I'd say there is no "legal" requirement involved. Yet. Should Guest_Greg return and clarify this for us, it might be a different tune.

[Josh Martin]

But whether RONR or bylaw rules, if mailing notice by a certain date is required, all the organization can be held responsible for is putting those letters in the mail (or perhaps bringing to the post office). That is, they can not be responsible for "delivery of the notice" or even the reading of it by members. Same would go for notice in the newspaper, as ordered by the bylaws. Nothing can assure the newspaper will print it, or that members will read it. All the organization can be responsible for is "delivery of the notice" to the newspaper (by whatever appropriate means) in adequate advance of the meeting so as to be printed by the notice date. If the newspaper fails to print the notice in a "timely fashion", the organization has done its part best as it can.

It seems to me there's a huge difference between a few letters getting lost in the mail and a notice never making it into a newspaper. In the former, some members don't get the notice. In the latter, no one gets the notice. I don't know that the "it wasn't our fault" argument will fly in the latter.

Nothing in the facts presented so far indicate anything but bylaw requirements are in play here, so until we hear otherwise, I'd say there is no "legal" requirement involved. Yet.

I can't imagine any reason to publish a notice in the newspaper unless the intent is to inform the general public. That hints at public bodies and legal requirements.

[Rob Elsman]

we have a monthly meeting on the same day and time. we needed to change the day, our by-laws require us to post in newspaper, we held meeting and conducted business then adjourned. after meeting it was discovered meeting change was never posted in paper. Was the meeting legal?

An improperly-called meeting is not a "...legal meeting..." for the purpose of applying the rule of RONR (10th ed.), p. 408, l. 31, through p. 409, l. 1. Whatever business was transacted is null and void on account that it violated 1) a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, since there were no legal votes by legal voters, RONR (10th ed.), p. 244, ll. 19-20; p. 255, ll. 3-12; p. 408, l. 31, through p. 409, l. 1; and, 2) a basic right of an individual member, since the transaction of business at an improperly-called meeting is tantamount to a violation of an absent member's right to attend meetings, RONR (10th ed.), p. 244, ll. 21-23; p. 255, ll. 13-28.

[David A Foulkes]

It seems to me there's a huge difference between a few letters getting lost in the mail and a notice never making it into a newspaper. In the former, some members don't get the notice. In the latter, no one gets the notice. I don't know that the "it wasn't our fault" argument will fly in the latter.

But they did hold the meeting, so obviously there was some other means of notice. I still think that if the organization took all the necessary steps to ensure proper notice, if the newspaper was at fault for not publishing the notice as contracted, the organization can't be entirely to blame. I can see that someone (the President?) should have checked the paper to make sure the notice was in there. And when found it wasn't, another change of date would have had to be scheduled, I guess. Bit of a mess all around.

I can't imagine any reason to publish a notice in the newspaper unless the intent is to inform the general public. That hints at public bodies and legal requirements.

This point seems well taken.

[Josh Martin]

But they did hold the meeting, so obviously there was some other means of notice.

Means of notice other than those prescribed in the Bylaws have no parliamentary significance.

I still think that if the organization took all the necessary steps to ensure proper notice, if the newspaper was at fault for not publishing the notice as contracted, the organization can't be entirely to blame.

Fair enough, but I do not think this necessarily means the meeting should be considered valid.

[David A Foulkes]

Means of notice other than those prescribed in the Bylaws have no parliamentary significance.

Although we can't be sure what the bylaws actually do say about notice, only that included in there is that notice must (also) be posted in the newspaper. The bylaws may include other means of notice as well since the meeting was held, we just don't know. Although only a guess, I suspect there is at least one other means of notice in the bylaws. The OP's question centers around the lack of newspaper notice and how that affects the propriety of the meeting. Maybe Guest_Greg will return and let us know.

[Guest betty cantor]

do homeowners have the right to be present at all board meetings

[hmtcastle]

do homeowners have the right to be present at all board meetings

No. As far as RONR is concerned, only members of the body that is meeting (e.g. the board) have a right to attend meetings.

Your rules (and/or applicable laws) may vary.

[For future reference, new questions should be posted as new Topics.]