Guest Sara

member

5 posts in this topic

my bylaws has a phrase re: quorum:  "A meeting at which a quorum is initially present may continue to transact business notwithstanding the withdrawal of Directors, but any action taken must be approved by at least a majority of the required quorum for such meeting."

I interpret this to mean that actions taken AFTER some of the Directors have left, can be taken, BUT must be ratified at the subsequent meeting by the majority of the required quorum.

Is that interpretation correct?

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Guest Sara said:

my bylaws has a phrase re: quorum:  "A meeting at which a quorum is initially present may continue to transact business notwithstanding the withdrawal of Directors, but any action taken must be approved by at least a majority of the required quorum for such meeting."

I interpret this to mean that actions taken AFTER some of the Directors have left, can be taken, BUT must be ratified at the subsequent meeting by the majority of the required quorum.

Is that interpretation correct?

Is up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws, but I am skeptical of this interpretation for two reasons:

  • It is already the case that members may take action (at their own risk) in the absence of a quorum and have that action ratified at a later, quorate meeting. This would suggest that this provision is meaningless, and it is generally assumed that anything in the bylaws is there for a reason.
  • The cited language makes no reference to the next meeting.

I would take this with a huge grain of salt, but it seems to me that what the rule provides is that action may still be taken in the absence of a quorum, provided that a quorum was present at the beginning of the meeting and provided that a number of members at least equal to the majority of the quorum vote in favor of the motion.

For an example, suppose that a quorum is ten. Ten members are present at the beginning of the meeting, but eventually, three members leave, so that only seven members are present. This provision would seem to suggest that business could still be transacted, but motions would require six votes in the affirmative (a majority of the quorum), rather than a majority of the members present and voting. A vote of 4-3, for instance, would not be sufficient.

I don't think this provision is a very good idea, but that appears to be what it says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a person in a meeting is obnoxious and interrupting the flow and attitude of the meeting can that person be removed from the meeting by a majority of the members?

What if that person is the state commander of your organization and it is a chapter meeting?

 

Can he still be removed by majority vote?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Guest Richieman said:

If a person in a meeting is obnoxious and interrupting the flow and attitude of the meeting can that person be removed from the meeting by a majority of the members?

What if that person is the state commander of your organization and it is a chapter meeting?

 

Can he still be removed by majority vote?

Please post your question as a new topic (and when you do, it would be helpful to clarify whether the obnoxious persons are members of the body that is meeting).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...