48 hour requirement

Our bylaws regarding a Board of Directors Quorum state "If at any meeting of the Board there shall be less than a quorum present, a majority of those present may adjourn the meeting to a time not more than 48 hours from the time the original meeting was called ...."

At the last HOA meeting the only Board member present was the president. The meeting was very well attended by residents. He said it would not be an official meeting, but residents would be allowed to talk. Residents were unhappy and wanted a new meeting ASAP. At the end of the unofficial meeting, he scheduled the next meeting four weeks later.
Is this a violation of 48 hour requirement and if so, what are the consequences?

Scot,
Frankly, who cares? You all can't get a Board quorum. How pitiful is that. Your president acted admirable. He should be supported 10% if we are getting good copy from you. He has my permission at the next meeting to drag a quorum to the meeting in chains.
Seriously, you all are in a train wreck. The bright spot, outside your president is the folks that showed for the meeting and stayed for the discussion and I wish it were possible to address each one of them. I would tell them, some one is messing with your rights, do something about it. Your group holds the power around here not a couple of Board members that won't show up for a called meeting. Don't let them dictate chaos in your lives, that is why there are such things as Boards; to provide order.
Get you train back on the track. And Good luck Scot and your president, and you concerned members.

Scot,

The way I see it, it would be impossible to comply with your bylaws and still be in compliance with state law which states a notice must be given 48 hrs b/4 the board meeting. IMO, what the bylaw is really saying is the the meeting may be adjourned until such time as a quorum is reached but not more than 48 hrs later. In other words, if the Pres felt he could muster a quorum w/i 48 hours then he may adjourn until that time. Perhaps the Pres felt this was an impossibility.

As Michele pointed out, the bylaws say "may adjourn the meeting". Perhaps the meeting was not adjourned but rather cancelled. But, either way, w/o a quorum the board cannot legally meet and conduct business. What I find strange is that the Pres didn't know a quorum would not be present until the appointed time of the meeting.

The fact that the residents were unhappy and wanted a new meeting ASAP is a moot point. It would have been a good thing for the Pres. to have informed them what the requirements of the law are.

George and Mary nailed it on the head: that rule lets the "no quorum" meeting be held in stasis (adjourned, but not cancelled) for up to 48 hours and then reconvened IF a quorum can be gathered. It would be the same meeting, and thus, the original meeting notice would cover it for purposes of compliance.

Adjourning for 4 weeks means a new notice would have to be sent, and honestly, it isn't an adjournment for that long, it's a closure and a new meeting, which is also legal, and sound like what the pres did (as long as new meeting notices are sent out about it).

It sounds to me like the pres did a fine job of walking a line without erring on either side.

The OP quoted the rules for a BOD meeting quorum, so I assume this was a BOD meeting with Non-BOD Membership in attendance. If so, then yes, Prez did the right thing as there was no BOD quorum.

Mary,

Our docs state that the board can set meetings without notice; however, we do post a 48 hours notice in any event.

Ellen,
Are you a condo or HOA? No matter which one, the Statutes take precidence over your docs and do require a 48 hour prior notice on all meetings except an emergency meeting. Sometimes documents do not get updated as the new Statutes get enacted which might be your associations case??

From 720 under notification of meetings " 1. Notices of all board meetings must be posted in a conspicuous place in the community at least 48 hours in advance of a meeting, except in an emergency. "

From 718, "Adequate notice of all meetings, which notice shall specifically incorporate an identification of agenda items, shall be posted conspicuously on the condominium property at least 48 continuous hours preceding the meeting except in an emergency. "

Donna,

We are an HOA and thanks for your input. Shows what can happen when one relies on outdated covenants. My daughter keeps up with statutes so we can thank her for putting up the notices when we felt we weren't obligated to.

Robert,
In my experiences, when someone points out that there is an error in how things are being done, it should be addressed. I always show documentation or at least a copy of the law or statute. Our P.M has made a few boo boos and as a Boardmember, the President was notified as the chain of command lies with him at the top. All errors should be addressed, be they rightly done or not. What the heck is the harm in checking it out? And when in error, what the heck is wrong with admitting that there is an error and it shall be corrected.

Donna,
I take your suggestions and comments in good faith, maybe some of the members would and maybe some of the board would. And you speaking to an issue with the M/c broadens the scoop, and you probably would agree the M/C could be replaced with "manager".
All good faith responses. There is a strong sentiment that some Boards feel that their acknowledged mistakes as board members only cause divisiveness in the membership. I don't think this is any secret. There is also great dependence that developers among board members (especially absentee board members) and the manager or Management Company. In time Board's lose perspective and will not show mistakes or will not acknowledge the Management is fallible and to admit this is a problem, will show they are somehow to blame. Some business operate this way, the good ones don't. So when does it become counterproductive to expose the warts?

I was most interested in your story about a miscalled Board meeting that turned into a productive neighborhood get together. A reality "Blog in person", so to speak. I think that possibility is never giving enough attention.