messadivoce Posted March 3, 2011 at 02:01 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 02:01 PM A Board in question has ~20 members and meets 3x a year. Routinely, almost all members attend. Bylaws don't specify anything about quorum. Is it best to leave this knowing that when unstated a quorum = 50% or more? Or to amend bylaws and add this? When would quorum be more than 2/3 rather than 50%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 3, 2011 at 02:25 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 02:25 PM quorum = 50% or more? Not quite - the RONR default quorum is more than 50%. If exactly half the members show, you do not have a quorum. If you want a different (smaler or larger) quorum, amend the bylaws to say so. Be careful what you wish for. When would quorum be more than 2/3?Never, per RONR, unless you amend your bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert B Fish Posted March 3, 2011 at 02:31 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 02:31 PM The level at which the quorum should be set depends on your organization. Some organizations operate with very high quorum requirements while some define the quorum as those who show up at any regular meeting. Both those extremes have problems and we assume the organizations thought them through before enacting those provisions. The quorum should "approximate the largest number that can be depended on to attend any meeting except in very bad weather or other extremely unfavorable conditions." [page 20]Tread carefully before making a change and think of the possible problems your actions could cause down the road.-Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:11 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:11 PM Is it best to leave this knowing that when unstated a quorum = 50% or more? Or to amend bylaws and add this?Well, it's just the "more," actually. If you had exactly 50% you would be just shy of the default quorum. If you're fine with the default quorum for the board, it's okay to leave the Bylaws silent. You would only need to amend the Bylaws if you want to change it.When would quorum be more than 2/3 rather than 50%?If your Bylaws specified such a quorum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest messadivoce Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:28 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:28 PM Thanks to all. Very helpful. May leave Bylaws "silent" and accept the default >50% of membership of the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted March 3, 2011 at 09:47 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 09:47 PM Thanks to all. Very helpful. May leave Bylaws "silent" and accept the default >50% of membership of the board.Note that the quorum for board meetings is generally significantly higher than the quorum for meetings of the general membership. You might, for instance, want nearly all board members present, not just more than half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 4, 2011 at 12:12 PM Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 at 12:12 PM Note that the quorum for board meetings is generally significantly higher than the quorum for meetings of the general membership. You might, for instance, want nearly all board members present, not just more than half.I think it would (almost always) be a mistake to tie the hands of a majority of the entire membership of a board by setting its quorum at something greater than a majority of its members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted March 4, 2011 at 10:08 PM Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 at 10:08 PM I think it would (almost always) be a mistake to tie the hands of a majority of the entire membership of a board by setting its quorum at something greater than a majority of its members.I appreciate that recommendation. Would it also apply to meetings of the general membership? If so, would RONR's default quorum be seen as a kind of "maximum".I was thinking the board would typically be composed of members who lived in such proximity that they could meet frequently and with relatively little notice. As such, the number that could be expected to attend meetings in all but the worst weather would be pretty high. Perhaps the problem with a majority holding the board hostage could be addressed with an attendance requirement (though I realize that's a fairly sticky wicket). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 5, 2011 at 12:06 AM Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 at 12:06 AM I appreciate that recommendation. Would it also apply to meetings of the general membership? If so, would RONR's default quorum be seen as a kind of "maximum".I was thinking the board would typically be composed of members who lived in such proximity that they could meet frequently and with relatively little notice. As such, the number that could be expected to attend meetings in all but the worst weather would be pretty high. Perhaps the problem with a majority holding the board hostage could be addressed with an attendance requirement (though I realize that's a fairly sticky wicket).I think it would apply, if anything, even more so to the general assembly. It allows a situation where a motion that has the support of a majority of the entire membership of the society--physically present--cannot be adopted because of an arguably artificial quorum requirement. That subverts the basic nature of the deliberative assembly, and even if technically "proper", would still be unseemly. I follow your thinking on board attendance, but I think the same argument is largely valid there, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 7, 2011 at 05:14 AM Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 at 05:14 AM I think it would apply, if anything, even more so to the general assembly. It allows a situation where a motion that has the support of a majority of the entire membership of the society--physically present--cannot be adopted because of an arguably artificial quorum requirement. That subverts the basic nature of the deliberative assembly, and even if technically "proper", would still be unseemly. Well, there's that, and it also means that quorum-busting becomes an even more effective tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DaleG Posted March 7, 2011 at 07:40 PM Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 at 07:40 PM Our bylaws state a specific number for a quorum. Our membership in attendance is only about 2/3 of that number. How can we reduce the number for a quorum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted March 7, 2011 at 07:47 PM Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 at 07:47 PM Our bylaws state a specific number for a quorum. Our membership in attendance is only about 2/3 of that number. How can we reduce the number for a quorum?Amend the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DaleG Posted March 7, 2011 at 09:03 PM Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 at 09:03 PM Our Bylaws require the specific number to be ammended, but we no longer have the attendance to meet that number. If the bylaws only stated the number for a quorum, but did not require the quorum to amend them, we would be ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted March 7, 2011 at 09:09 PM Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 at 09:09 PM Our Bylaws require the specific number to be ammended, but we no longer have the attendance to meet that number. If the bylaws only stated the number for a quorum, but did not require the quorum to amend them, we would be ok.Well, then you're stuck. Try offering free food, free beer, and door prizes. Pare down the membership list. Add new members. Do whatever you have to do to get a quorum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 7, 2011 at 09:18 PM Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 at 09:18 PM Our Bylaws require the specific number to be ammended, but we no longer have the attendance to meet that number. If the bylaws only stated the number for a quorum, but did not require the quorum to amend them, we would be ok.You're going to get enough members in attendance at least once in order to amend the Bylaws. Unless the Bylaws specify otherwise, the quorum requirement applies to all classes of business, including amending the Bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 7, 2011 at 10:37 PM Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 at 10:37 PM Well, then you're stuck. Try offering free food, free beer, and door prizes. Pare down the membership list. Add new members. Do whatever you have to do to get a quorum.Paring down the membership list won't help if there's a fixed number as a quorum. In fact, if you pare below the quorum number, you're under water.Adding members might help if you can get them to show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted March 7, 2011 at 10:43 PM Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 at 10:43 PM Paring down the membership list won't help if there's a fixed number as a quorum. In fact, if you pare below the quorum number, you're under Yes. I may have been recalling the original poster's "two-thirds" and "50%" figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted March 7, 2011 at 10:45 PM Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 at 10:45 PM Yes. I may have been recalling the original poster's "two-thirds" and "50%" figures.The inherent problem in replying to a thread hijack. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.