Edgar Guest

I know the feeling.

Yes, of course. I was being a tad facetious.

Well, I'm awake now. And I suppose I can live with the inclusion of "adopted motions" in the minutes of an inquorate meeting. Though I think I would prefer that those decisions were made after the meeting was adjourned lest the members think that, by doing so during the meeting, there's any added legitimacy. Perhaps the minutes would go something like this: "Due to the absence of a quorum, the assembly couldn't adopt a motion to paint the clubhouse. The assembly then adopted a motion to paint the clubhouse." Alternatively, "Due to the absence of a quorum, the meeting was adjourned." The three members who had been present then decided to paint the clubhouse.

Well, it was kind of a loaded question. But we usually agree that a meeting can be said to have begun even if it wasn't formally called to order and we usually agree that, once everyone leaves, the meeting is over even if it wasn't formally adjourned. So I'm not sure it's too much of a stretch to say that, while the assembly is waiting for more members to show up, any casual decisions the members might make could be considered to have been made while the meeting is in recess. I'm only grasping at straws because I'm not comfortable with enshrining inquorate decisions in the minutes. But I'll sleep on it.

What if, realizing that no business could be properly conducted in the absence of a quorum, the few members present, perhaps while waiting for more members to show up, informally decided to take some action that they felt couldn't wait. Would that decision (taken during what was, in effect, a recess) be entered in the minutes? While the minutes should record what was (officially if improperly) done at a meeting, surely they don't have to record everything that happened at a meeting.

Yes, I figured that would be the correct answer. I would only hope that at least one member (of the three that were present?) would raise a point of order to the effect that, absent a quorum, the assembly can't pretend to make any of these "whatever" decisions.

Should it? If actions taken at an inquorate meeting are taken by individuals (and not by the assembly), isn't it the same as if those members had happened to meet get together at the local tavern and made the same decisions?

I trust you're not suggesting that these "whatevers" belong in the minutes of a meeting at which there was no quorum.

There is no such thing as "recusal" in RONR-Land. Note, too, that leaving the meeting could affect the presence of a quorum.

Yes, of course, That's what I meant to say.

Although it appears the required vote requirement wasn't met, the time to raise a point of order has passed. See Official Interpretation 2006-18. Of course if the two absent members show up at the next meeting, and vote with the two members who voted against dissolving/disbanding/discharging the committee, a new committee could be appointed.

Well, it looks like they didn't have the required vote though, of course, at this point that's moot.

If the board giveth, the board can taketh away. Rescinding a motion requires either a two-thirds vote, the affirmative vote of a majority of the (total) membership (of the board), or, with previous notice, just a majority vote. It might also be possible for the general membership to rescind a motion adopted by the board. See Official Interpretation 2006-13.

The assembly consists of the members of the body that is meeting who are present. If it's a board meeting, the assembly consists of the board members who are present. If it's a meeting of the (general membership of the) association, the assembly consists of the general members who are present. The assembly consists of the members that are assembled.

You might want to take a deep breath.

When you say "board meetings can be attended by anyone", is that a rule or just a custom? If it's not a rule, guests can be excluded whenever the board wants. Some or all can be excluded. A majority vote (or unanimous consent) will do the trick. There's certainly no reason to permit non-members to disrupt a meeting. If they can't behave they should be told to leave.

Please post your question as a new topic. Our forum works best that way. This thread (well, most of it) is more than four years old.

An intention to resign is not necessarily the same thing as a resignation.

The appointment stands. People make decisions based on misinformation all the time. But the appointed officer could be removed. And the board member who gave you the wrong information could be removed though, unless he was deliberately misleading you, that seems a bit harsh. If you're going to start removing officers based on ignorance you'll soon end up with no officers at all. After all, you didn't know the rule either. As for resigning, that's a voluntary act. So you can ask but he can refuse. In any event, see FAQ #20.

While the vote was unanimous (i.e. no one voted against the motion), a unanimous vote has no parliamentary significance. Further, it can easily be misunderstood to suggest that every member voted in favor of the motion. Clearly, that wasn't the case here. Not only did one member abstain from voting, other members may have been absent. So, as indicated, just record that the motion was adopted. Unless a counted vote was ordered, in which case you'd record the number of "yes" and "no" votes (e.g. 8-0). Or if it was a roll-call vote, in which case you'd record the name of each member and how he/she voted. But there's never any reason to describe the vote as "unanimous".

Well, the OP did mention expelling a committee member from her (or his) office.

The person (or body) that appointed the member to the committee is very likely to be the person (or body) that can remove her. Or him. See also FAQ #20.

When my "mentor" (that's his term, not mine), Mr. Mountcastle, was elected president of his high school political science club, his father gave him a copy of Robert's Rules of Order (the 75th Anniversary edition; that's how old he is!). Fast-forward a few decades and he found himself managing the website of a local historical society. When he posted the bylaws online he realized they weren't being followed. One thing led to another and he discovered the previous incarnation of this forum. Back when it was still possible (if not entirely rational) to read every single post from "day one". At some point, for reasons known only to him, he "passed the torch" (his words, not mine) to me. And that's how I got started.

See FAQ #14. As always, your rules (and any applicable laws) may vary.

Though I think it's helpful to preserve the distinction (even if it's only semantic) between correcting minutes prior to their approval and amending them after they've been approved.