Fix time to adjourn

[Guest MarkB]

Our annual church meeting will take place in two weeks. One of the topics may be referred to a commitee. If we would like a report from the committee in say 4 to 6 months, instead of calling a special meeting to hear the committee's report, could the meeting be adjourned to a future date and time to deal with the subject? If the report contains recommended by-laws changes, does that change the situation? I know we will have to follow our constitution and by-laws procedure from that point forward, but it seems it would be easier to adjourn to a fixed time than dealing with the requirements of a special meeting.

[Gary Novosielski]

Our annual church meeting will take place in two weeks. One of the topics may be referred to a commitee. If we would like a report from the committee in say 4 to 6 months, instead of calling a special meeting to hear the committee's report, could the meeting be adjourned to a future date and time to deal with the subject? If the report contains recommended by-laws changes, does that change the situation? I know we will have to follow our constitution and by-laws procedure from that point forward, but it seems it would be easier to adjourn to a fixed time than dealing with the requirements of a special meeting.

Yes, that's fine. And because you have referred the item to a committee, you neatly avoid the problem of "quarterly time interval" which makes certain types of postponement improper.

Of course you cannot move, "... that when the meeting adjourns, it adjourn to meet here in, say, four to six months". But, if you don't have a definite date when the committee will rise, you can still created create an adjourned meeting by moving that, when the meeting adjourns, "... it adjourn to meet at the call of the chair." Instruct the committee to notify the chair/president/moderator when it has a definite date for completion, and then the chair can issue a call for the adjourned meeting at an appropriate time. The call of the adjourned meeting would be similar to a call for a special meeting, but without the restrictions of specifying an exclusive agenda.

[Guest MarkB]

Great! That's what I was hoping. Thank you.

[Rob Elsman]

Yes, that's fine. And because you have referred the item to a committee, you neatly avoid the problem of "quarterly time interval" which makes certain types of postponement improper.

Of course you cannot move, "... that when the meeting adjourns, it adjourn to meet here in, say, four to six months". But, if you don't have a definite date when the committee will rise, you can still created create an adjourned meeting by moving that, when the meeting adjourns, "... it adjourn to meet at the call of the chair." Instruct the committee to notify the chair/president/moderator when it has a definite date for completion, and then the chair can issue a call for the adjourned meeting at an appropriate time. The call of the adjourned meeting would be similar to a call for a special meeting, but without the restrictions of specifying an exclusive agenda.

I recognize that I am definitely an outlier in my opinion of this, but I do not believe that a meeting held beyond the quarterly time interval (p. 88) can, in any way, be considered a "...continuation [emphasis mine]..." of the previous meeting, RONR (10th ed.), p. 90, l. 28. Such a meeting should always be treated as if it were the first sitting of a new assembly. I hold, contrary to some, that what is said on p. 91, ll. 2-7, applies to the usual case in ordinary societies that meet frequently--perhaps monthly or quarterly. Where an assembly regularly meets only annually, an adjourned meeting held five or six months after the previous regular meeting necessarily implies that the assembly adjourned from time to time in the interim in such a way that the intervals between meetings did not exceed the quarterly time interval; otherwise, the assembly adjourned sine die, in which case the assembly can only meet again before the next regular meeting by way of a properly-called special meeting.

In the case of assemblies that meet infrequently, e.g., annually, matters of importance that cannot wait for action until the next regular meeting should be referred, instead, to a strongly-empowered executive board with appropriate instructions.

[Gary Novosielski]

In the case of assemblies that meet infrequently, e.g., annually, matters of importance that cannot wait for action until the next regular meeting should be referred, instead, to a strongly-empowered executive board with appropriate instructions.

The problem here is that the matter being considered by the committee is apparently a bylaws amendment, which presumably must be approved by the membership. I don't believe the membership can empower a board in that case, without amending the bylaws, which, of course, only compounds the problem.

As to the "quarterly interval" question, there is no such restriction noted in the section on Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn (§22), nor in the description of meeting types, viz. Adjourned Meeting (§9). If there is such a restriction, that is where one would expect to find it. I don't share your interpretation of page 91, line 2, because it does not seem to reference the quarterly time interval at all, only stating that the adjourned meeting must occur before the next regular meeting--a rule which is reinforced elsewhere as well--but which could be many months later.

Also, page 92, lines 10-14 suggest that business required to be conducted at the Annual Meeting (e.g., bylaws amendments, say) can properly be taken up at an adjournment thereof. Lines 14-20 do not apply, because they only authorize postponement to a Regular Meeting, of which there are none in this scenario, and then only when the regular meeting is within the quarterly interval, which is also not the case here. That would appear to leave either a Special Meeting or an Adjourned Meeting as possible alternatives, and RONR (p. 92, l. 10-14) suggests the adjournment as the best course.

And keep in mind that if this Annual Meeting is held in two weeks (presumably on or after February 1), then the definition of within a quarterly time interval would extend until the end of May, so the question may be moot.

[Rob Elsman]

The problem here is that the matter being considered by the committee is apparently a bylaws amendment, which presumably must be approved by the membership. I don't believe the membership can empower a board in that case, without amending the bylaws, which, of course, only compounds the problem.

As to the "quarterly interval" question, there is no such restriction noted in the section on Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn (§22), nor in the description of meeting types, viz. Adjourned Meeting (§9). If there is such a restriction, that is where one would expect to find it. I don't share your interpretation of page 91, line 2, because it does not seem to reference the quarterly time interval at all, only stating that the adjourned meeting must occur before the next regular meeting--a rule which is reinforced elsewhere as well--but which could be many months later.

Also, page 92, lines 10-14 suggest that business required to be conducted at the Annual Meeting (e.g., bylaws amendments, say) can properly be taken up at an adjournment thereof. Lines 14-20 do not apply, because they only authorize postponement to a Regular Meeting, of which there are none in this scenario, and then only when the regular meeting is within the quarterly interval, which is also not the case here. That would appear to leave either a Special Meeting or an Adjourned Meeting as possible alternatives, and RONR (p. 92, l. 10-14) suggests the adjournment as the best course.

And keep in mind that if this Annual Meeting is held in two weeks (presumably on or after February 1), then the definition of within a quarterly time interval would extend until the end of May, so the question may be moot.

I guess the crux of it boils down to what the word "continuation" in RONR (10th ed.), p. 90, l. 28, signifies. Some would even say that a quadrennial convention could legitimately adjourn to a time three years and nine months later, and that the "adjourned meeting" would be a "continuation" of the previous meeting. As they would have it, the program would be picked up right where it was left off, almost as if there had been no interruption at all. I say that is hogwash. There is no reason to think that an assembly that should not leave the minutes of its meetings for approval five months later--presumably because the members could not recall the proceedings well enough to judge whether or not the minutes are correct--can, nevertheless, pick right up where it left off, as if it had met a few day before, and have a "continuation" of a meeting three years plus later. Such an opinion just evacuates the word "continuation" of its real meaning and makes "continuation" and "adjourned meeting" nothing more than a legal fiction--perhaps a fig leaf to cover over what really amounts to an end-run around the prescriptions of the bylaws for (or against) special meetings.

[Josh Martin]

Yes, that's fine. And because you have referred the item to a committee, you neatly avoid the problem of "quarterly time interval" which makes certain types of postponement improper.

The fact that an adjourned meeting is being used means that the motion to Postpone Definitely would have been perfectly in order as well. This was discussed the last time a question of this nature came up. A question may always be postponed to a meeting in the same session.