Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

tctheatc

Members
  • Posts

    966
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tctheatc

  1. Because by approving it you are attesting to its accuracy, an accuracy that has not been verified by an audit or something similar. Therefore it is procedurally improper, according to RONR, to approve it. Nobody is saying that the alternative is that you are doing something nefarious, although that is what you seem to be inferring from the use of the term "(im)proper".
  2. ...such as (coincidentally) the same topics that are listed on the unapproved agenda.
  3. So you went from saying you needed 2/3 of 78 (or so) for a quorum... To saying however many voting members show up, take 2/3 of that, and that's the quorum? Is that what you're saying the interpretation of your bylaws was? So if 60 show up, a quorum is 40? If 10 show up, a quorum is 7? If 1 shows up, a quorum is 1?
  4. I have run into this often. people simply do not get the notion of a quorum. I have had it explained to me, patiently as if I am an idiot, that we take the number of people present there at the meeting, divide it by two, and anything more than that is a quorum!! HUH?? So I ask, "so to determine if you have enough members at a meeting, you see how many you have, and take 1/2 of it?" Yes. 1/2 of whoever is there is a quorum. I'm told that all the time. And I wonder what is a majority of zero...
  5. 20 is definitely a number, an integer. 2/3 of voting members is not an integer; it is a differential equation, as in calculus. It is an expression of the relationship of variables, it explains x as a function of y. As the number of people rises or increases (at the meeting) the equation explains how the other variable changes in relation. I would argue, then, that both expressions are not numbers. In fact, whether or not "2/3 of the voting members" is a hard number is exactly the question at hand (does it mean 2/3 of the membership roll of 80 or does it mean 2/3 of whatever number of people we count in the seats at a given time?), so claiming it's a hard number is begging the question. (I mean that in the sense I learned in philosophy, i.e. stating positively the question at hand as a premise, not in its current common usage as a substitute for "raising" the question.) I am enjoying this discussion of what should be a really simple concept. My church has a similarly vague definition of quorum I'd love to amend.
  6. If that's how your group interprets that section of your bylaws, then I don't see where you really have a problem. I have doubts that is what really was intended when that 2/3 rule was written. With your interpretation, 1 would be a quorum, also. You basically ALWAYS have a quorum if you look at it that way. That's the good news! If you are concerned that as few as 1 is not a reasonable minimum, you are on the right track! Have your bylaws amended in whatever way is necessary to make it more reasonable, but not as high as the 2/3 of 80 that in my opinion (for what that's worth!) is what your bylaws is really talking about. You have the info right there from RONR yourself. You know what needs to be done. Get cracking!
×
×
  • Create New...