Guest Brian Carmicle Posted February 14, 2015 at 03:22 AM Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 at 03:22 AM According to our society constitution, A quorum consists of six members of the Committee, provided that - of the President, the Vice President, the Secretary, and the Treasurer, two must be present at all meetings. However, we have an upcoming balloted vote, which, for various reasons, the four holders of these positions are prohibited from voting on. Assume eight members of the committee are present (the two required + six others), and there are six votes. Does a quorum exist?Assume six members of the committee are present (the two required + four others), and there are four votes. Does a quorum exist? Thanks,Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted February 14, 2015 at 03:36 AM Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 at 03:36 AM A quorum is the minimum number of members present for business to be validly conducted. It does not depend on the number of votes. Based on the information provided, it appears that a quorum exists in both situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 14, 2015 at 06:01 AM Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 at 06:01 AM However, we have an upcoming balloted vote, which, for various reasons, the four holders of these positions are prohibited from voting on. Assume eight members of the committee are present (the two required + six others), and there are six votes. Does a quorum exist?Assume six members of the committee are present (the two required + four others), and there are four votes. Does a quorum exist? Are the members in question truly prohibited from voting on this motion? This would need to be clearly stated in the bylaws or in applicable law. In any event, I don't think there is any doubt that a quorum is present in the first situation. The second situation seems less clear. A quorum is the minimum number of members present for business to be validly conducted. It does not depend on the number of votes. Based on the information provided, it appears that a quorum exists in both situations. I'm less certain. If the members are actually deprived of their right to vote on this motion, then I am not certain that, at that moment, they are members of the assembly in the sense the term is used in RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brian Carmicle Posted February 14, 2015 at 02:18 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 at 02:18 PM Are the members in question truly prohibited from voting on this motion? This would need to be clearly stated in the bylaws or in applicable law. Yes. Our constitution also provides: No member of the committee shall be eligible to vote on any matter where he or she has a personal vested financial interest in the matter. The Treasurer shall be entitled, subject to a two-thirds vote by the committee, to exclude any person from voting under this section. The President shall be entitled, subject to a two-thirds vote by the committee, to exclude the Treasurer from voting under this section. Should any person be excluded by the Treasurer or President to vote under this section, the vote shall be by ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 14, 2015 at 02:34 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 at 02:34 PM If the President says that the Treasurer is precluded from voting on something, and a vote is taken by ballot to see if two-thirds agree, does the Treasurer get to vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 14, 2015 at 02:36 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 at 02:36 PM Just to put in a plug for the good old days -- why was it changed? -- RONR/1990 defined a quorum (p. 339) as "the number of members entitled to vote who must be present..." The subsequent editions substituted "(see definition, p.3)" for the emboldended phrase in the 1990 edition. These two definitions are (I guess) equivalent, but the 1990 version is certainly starker and would leave no doubt that the "six members present" (post #1) meeting was inquorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 14, 2015 at 03:32 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 at 03:32 PM Just to put in a plug for the good old days -- why was it changed? -- RONR/1990 defined a quorum (p. 339) as "the number of members entitled to vote who must be present..." The subsequent editions substituted "(see definition, p.3)" for the emboldended phrase in the 1990 edition. These two definitions are (I guess) equivalent, but the 1990 version is certainly starker and would leave no doubt that the "six members present" (post #1) meeting was inquorate. No doubt about it, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted February 14, 2015 at 03:44 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 at 03:44 PM Our constitution also provides:No member of the committee shall be eligible to vote on any matter where he or she has a personal vested financial interest in the matter. The Treasurer shall be entitled, subject to a two-thirds vote by the committee, to exclude any person from voting under this section. The President shall be entitled, subject to a two-thirds vote by the committee, to exclude the Treasurer from voting under this section. Should any person be excluded by the Treasurer or President to vote under this section, the vote shall be by ballot. Given this new information, I think the determination of a quorum in your organization will be a matter of interpreting the bylaws (constitution), which is ultimately up to the organization to do. The question is whether these members are members who would count toward a quorum. In RONR, members have the right to vote. Otherwise, they are not members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted February 14, 2015 at 03:50 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 at 03:50 PM In RONR, members have the right to vote. Otherwise, they are not members. Well, that's a bit harsh. For example, a member whose rights are suspended (pending disciplinary action) is still a member, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted February 14, 2015 at 04:05 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 at 04:05 PM Well, that's a bit harsh. For example, a member whose rights are suspended (pending disciplinary action) is still a member, no? Yes, you are right that there are exceptions to my general statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 14, 2015 at 04:52 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 at 04:52 PM Well, that's a bit harsh. For example, a member whose rights are suspended (pending disciplinary action) is still a member, no? Sure, but such a member would, in my opinion, not count as a member when determining whether a quorum is present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 14, 2015 at 06:09 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 at 06:09 PM Well, that's a bit harsh. For example, a member whose rights are suspended (pending disciplinary action) is still a member, no? Sure, but such a member would, in my opinion, not count as a member when determining whether a quorum is present. I agree that a member whose rights as a member have been suspended as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings should not be counted in determining the presence of a quorum. On the other hand, I'm not at all sure that a member necessarily loses his status as a member for quorum determination purposes simply because the assembly's rules prevent him from voting on a pending motion. I don't think that the rules in RONR provide any clear-cut answer. Once the bylaws start messing around with the basic rights of membership, the organization itself should determine the consequences of doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.