Guest Sharon Posted October 10, 2012 at 03:52 AM Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 at 03:52 AM Last week, a Board of Directors for a housing association (I am the secretary) held its regularly scheduled meeting. Due to illness etc, we didn't have a quorum as defined by our bylaws. The President jumped in and "suspended the rules" and appointed the husband of a missing Board member to fill in so that we would have a quorum. We were all surprised, but had no controversial business and because no one was able to contradict the action we let it go by and held the meeting. Tonight, a Board of a regional assocation held its monthly meeting. My husband is president. They failed to have a quorum.. maybe its the weather.. or the flu?? Anyway, they followed their bylaws and didn't have a meeting but just a discussion of future plans. A member approached him later and asked why he didn't just "suspend the rules" and hold a meeting. He took the position that such action would be improper. I agree with him, but thought I'd ask the experts. If the Bylaws are clear on the numbers necessary for a quorum, and they don't allow for proxy voting, isn't it wrong to use the "suspend the rules" option in this case? It doesn't feel right but the one President was so positive that this could be done, that it left the Board confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted October 10, 2012 at 06:22 AM Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 at 06:22 AM There are rules that can be suspended, but a quorum rule is absolutely not one of them. The president can just as validly suspend the Bylaw of Gravity, so when it's time to leave, he doesn't have to wait for the elevator: he can just open the window and waft gently to the ground.No way, no how.Any business that was done at the housing meeting is null and void.(Here's a possible exception: IF the president, or the board, has the authority to appoint that husband, then probably it will fly. But I doubt it, and don't get snowed with any hogwash quoting stuff about "-general management of the affairs of the Association,-" either.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 10, 2012 at 11:26 AM Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 at 11:26 AM The President jumped in and "suspended the rules" and appointed the husband of a missing Board member to fill in so that we would have a quorum. I'd be curious to learn what rule was suspended that allowed this. Nonetheless, at the bottom of p. 263 (RONR 11th Ed.) is reference to the nonsuspendability of the rule requiring the presence of a quorum. And while I"m sure the President would argue "yeah, but .... we had a quorum after I appointed Gus to be a Director pro tem", that sort of practice is a bunch of hoo-hah.So, you might consider getting (what I like to call) the study guide, the "In Brief" version which hits all the major high points, as well The Book which has more than you'll ever want to know. Read In Brief right away (several times), before you lay in for the official book. Keep them with you at all times. Then when someone tries to foist what sounds like a bunch of hoo-hah on you, you can say "show me where it says that in Robert's Rules." And when they say it's not like they carry a copy around with them, presto --- you hold yours out and say "well, it's a good thing I do, or you just might get away with it this time." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 10, 2012 at 01:11 PM Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 at 01:11 PM And don't forget to see if discipline of the president is warranted. I'd sure vote yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 10, 2012 at 01:22 PM Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 at 01:22 PM . . . they followed their bylaws and didn't have a meeting . . .Well, as far as RONR is concerned, they should have held the meeting, even if a quorum wasn't present. And minutes (albeit brief ones) should have been prepared. There is no provision in RONR for canceling a meeting. A meeting (either regular or special) was presumably scheduled and a meeting should have been held.So it looks like there were two presidents who didn't understand the rules. That's some flu that's going around.(Note: it's possible, but I think unlikely, that the bylaws of the second association state that no meetings can be held without a quorum, in which case the president acted properly. But I suspect the bylaws simply establish a quorum - as they should - and the president took it from there.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 10, 2012 at 01:25 PM Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 at 01:25 PM I'd be curious to learn what rule was suspended that allowed this.The ugly truth of "Suspending the Rules" is that you don't have to know what rule needs to be suspended. You just fire the "suspend-the-rules" shotgun and it hits what needs to be hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMargaret Posted October 10, 2012 at 01:55 PM Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 at 01:55 PM (Here's a possible exception: IF the president, or the board, has the authority to appoint that husband, then probably it will fly. But I doubt it, and don't get snowed with any hogwash quoting stuff about "-general management of the affairs of the Association,-" either.)One slight quibble - if the president had the authority to appoint a spare board member, then yes. However, if it is the board that has the authority to appoint, the board could not have met to appoint the member in order to have quorum to meet. Makes it even less likely to have happened correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnR Posted October 10, 2012 at 03:45 PM Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 at 03:45 PM The ugly truth of "Suspending the Rules" is that you don't have to know what rule needs to be suspended. You just fire the "suspend-the-rules" shotgun and it hits what needs to be hit.But if you miss the rules of order you might get return fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 10, 2012 at 04:23 PM Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 at 04:23 PM The ugly truth of "Suspending the Rules" is that you don't have to know what rule needs to be suspended. You just fire the "suspend-the-rules" shotgun and it hits what needs to be hit.Yep, but still needs to be a preventing rule in place to suspend. Just curious what this guy thought that was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.