no quorum new policy.. now what?

[CameronR]

Hi All

Our Board has never had a policy regarding academic integrity (cheating on tests). We've always loosely said that the Board "could" remove someone from exams but fortunately never has been faced with doing so. At an electronic meeting (which our by-laws allow) specifically arranged to pass a motion regarding this new academic integrity policy we did not meet quorum. I'm wondering if because no policy existed previously the legality under RONR if we were to just adopt this new policy as a custom until it can be officially moved.

I'm looking for suggestions as these exams are happening this weekend and currently we're preparing to present to the candidates the language contained within the academic integrity policy.

Quick thoughts or ideas very welcomed!

[Guest Edgar]

I'm wondering if because no policy existed previously the legality under RONR if we were to just adopt this new policy as a custom until it can be officially moved.

The legitimacy (or lack thereof) of this "policy" remains unchanged. Any "decision" made at the inquorate meeting has no standing. So you're in the same place you were before the meeting. No worse off, but no better. If the board couldn't do it then, they can't do it now. If they could, they can.

[Josh Martin]

I'm wondering if because no policy existed previously the legality under RONR if we were to just adopt this new policy as a custom until it can be officially moved.

Well, no. You don't adopt customs. A custom is simply how something has happened in the past. Since you've never had to actually handle an academic integrity case, there is no custom on the matter.

What you could do is adopt the motion notwithstanding the absence of a quorum. This is sometimes done for "emergency actions" which can't wait until a quorate meeting can be called together. The action can then be ratified at a quorate meeting. This is quite risky, however, and I wouldn't advise it unless the action truly cannot wait and you're almost certain that the action will be ratified. Given the nature of this particular policy, you might want to run this by a lawyer as well to see if there are any legal complications with that plan.

I'm looking for suggestions as these exams are happening this weekend and currently we're preparing to present to the candidates the language contained within the academic integrity policy.

Well, you can either hope that your good luck continues and no one cheats, or you can go with the strategy of crossing your fingers and hoping for ratification (but I'd run that by a lawyer first).

[Guest Edgar]

What you could do is adopt the motion notwithstanding the absence of a quorum.

As long as it's clear that the "you" in this case is not the board.

And I'm not even sure that one or more board members can even adopt a motion. Yes, they can take action in an emergency and hope that action is later ratified by the proper adoption of a motion. But can they adopt a motion? I'm inclined to say no. Adopting such a motion is only possible at a quorate meeting.

[Josh Martin]

As long as it's clear that the "you" in this case is not the board.

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, the board members would be acting as individuals, not as the board.

And I'm not even sure that one or more board members can even adopt a motion. Yes, they can take action in an emergency and hope that action is later ratified by the proper adoption of a motion. But can they adopt a motion? I'm inclined to say no. Adopting such a motion is only possible at a quorate meeting.

Interesting. Certainly if the board members acted outside of a meeting they would not be adopting a motion. I had presumed that in the case of an inquorate meeting an action taken in an emergency would be handled as a motion, but I grant that this is not clearly spelled out in RONR. The distinction may not make much difference for a small board, but in a larger assembly I believe it would be important that it was processed as a motion so that it could be handled in an orderly fashion.

[Guest Edgar]

. . . I believe it would be important that it was processed as a motion so that it could be handled in an orderly fashion.

I agree that it makes sense for the inquorate assembly to act, if act they must, as if they were adopting a motion but, in fact, they would not be doing so (since adopting such a motion is not one of the few things permitted of an inquorate assembly). So if you're saying that they should first agree on what they're proposing to do, then talk about, then vote on it, that's fine. But I think it's misleading to suggest that, when all is said and done, a motion has been adopted.

[Josh Martin]

I agree that it makes sense for the inquorate assembly to act, if act they must, as if they were adopting a motion but, in fact, they would not be doing so (since adopting such a motion is not one of the few things permitted of an inquorate assembly). So if you're saying that they should first agree on what they're proposing to do, then talk about, then vote on it, that's fine. But I think it's misleading to suggest that, when all is said and done, a motion has been adopted.

Fair enough. I shall be careful to be more precise in my language in the future.

[CameronR]

I thank everyone for their input. Just as an aside, we have had academic integrity situations in the past and dealt with them in the fashion that have set out in the yet to be formally aproved policy. Our documentation around that currently is "X organization has the authority to take whatever measures it deems appropriate.." lax and open to challenge which is why we've documented the policy formally. It was to to be presented to candidates formally but due to the inquorate assembly we can't present it as we'd hoped as official policy. We'll cross our fingers that we're not faced with a situation this weekend.

Again, thanks for the quick info.