CornelR Posted May 27, 2016 at 12:57 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2016 at 12:57 PM One of our legislative districts has a quorum requirement in their bylaws of 33% of the voting membership of which at least two are officers. They have a meeting this weekend to reorganize, which meeting is repeated every two years. It is very possible they will not have two officers show up. The window for the meetings is 8 to 11 days after the primary which was May 17 so they can meet between the 25th and the 28th. If they do not meet, they will not be able to elect new officers nor will they be able to elect delegates to the Republican state convention in June. Is there a provision in Roberts to deal with this such as possibly electing a temporary secretary or a temporary Vice chair. The situation is this, the vice chair is angry at his treatment by the chair and is refusing to show up. The secretary resigned many months ago and is out of town anyway. It seems to me that they could elect a temporary secretary as though they were in their first meeting although they are not. The only problem with this of course is the catch 22 that they do not have a quorum to elect an officer. Any help would be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 27, 2016 at 01:39 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2016 at 01:39 PM No quorum = no business. T'aint no way around that one. If you do a little arm twisting, perhaps, and get the 33% and two "officers" (perhaps board members can count as officers -- check your bylaws) to show up, you can elect a chair pro tem, and a secretary likewise, and do all the business you need to. Do you really want to go to Cleveland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted May 27, 2016 at 02:42 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2016 at 02:42 PM 59 minutes ago, jstackpo said: No quorum = no business. T'aint no way around that one. If you do a little arm twisting, perhaps, and get the 33% and two "officers" (perhaps board members can count as officers -- check your bylaws) to show up, you can elect a chair pro tem, and a secretary likewise, and do all the business you need to. Do you really want to go to Cleveland? I believe you can elect a secretary pro tem and a chair pro tem, in the absence of a quorum (though it would probably not create a quorum in this case). See pp. 347-8, I believe this was clarified in the 11th edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornelR Posted May 27, 2016 at 03:15 PM Author Report Share Posted May 27, 2016 at 03:15 PM Thank you all, I was afraid that the lack of a quorum would prove to be a nearly insurmountable problem in this particular case. I suppose they could conduct the business to be ratified later if the incoming officers are willing to do that once they actually are elected. I will give this information to the district. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 27, 2016 at 04:20 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2016 at 04:20 PM I have never understood why an organization thinks it should require the presence of a certain number of officers (as well as a certain number of members) to constitute a quorum, but apparently it is not all that uncommon. It seems to me to be a terrible idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornelR Posted May 27, 2016 at 04:49 PM Author Report Share Posted May 27, 2016 at 04:49 PM It is a terrible idea and I have encouraged them to change it several times to no avail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 27, 2016 at 05:12 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2016 at 05:12 PM An argument you might try in the future is that the "two officer" requirement effectively hands a veto power to the officers, perhaps tempered a bit by the number of officers you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted May 27, 2016 at 05:37 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2016 at 05:37 PM 2 hours ago, CornelR said: I was afraid that the lack of a quorum would prove to be a nearly insurmountable problem in this particular case. I suppose they could conduct the business to be ratified later if the incoming officers are willing to do that once they actually are elected. I will give this information to the district. If the district convention is the body which elects the district's officers and elects delegates to the state convention, then if these actions are taken in the absence of a quorum, only the district convention may ratify those actions. The officers acting alone may not ratify these actions (especially considering that their election as officers is one of the things which needs to be ratified). I'd also note that if there is a dispute over the seating of your district's delegates, the state convention's credentials committee is going to have to deal with it, so it might be good to contact them in advance regarding these issues. 45 minutes ago, CornelR said: It is a terrible idea and I have encouraged them to change it several times to no avail. Well, if this incident doesn't change their minds, I don't know what will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g40 Posted May 29, 2016 at 01:04 PM Report Share Posted May 29, 2016 at 01:04 PM A trivial matter, perhaps, but is the requirement 33% or 1/3? A little bit different. So, for example, if there ate 100 voting members - 33% would be 33, while 1/3 would require 34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.