Voting process for Directors of a 50l (c) 3 organization

[Guest georgia Nielsen]

All 12 directors will be re-elected or elected for an upcoming term on a conference call. The eligible voters, numbering eighteen, will cast the votes and a majority vote of the quorum (9) will elect the directors (new bylaws reduced the number of directors.)

Question: If voters abstain and/or leave the conference while the voting is in process, thus reducing the majority vote number of 9, will the election be invalid?

[g40]

"majority of a quorum" makes little sense. Is a conference call "meeting" specifically allowed in your bylaws? If not, it is not valid.

[Josh Martin]

All 12 directors will be re-elected or elected for an upcoming term on a conference call. The eligible voters, numbering eighteen, will cast the votes and a majority vote of the quorum (9) will elect the directors (new bylaws reduced the number of directors.)

Question: If voters abstain and/or leave the conference while the voting is in process, thus reducing the majority vote number of 9, will the election be invalid?

Conference calls are not permitted unless authorized by your Bylaws.

If they are authorized, then abstentions or people leaving the call will not affect the validity of the election, unless enough people leave that you lose quorum. It could affect the outcome of the election, however, and could conceivably mean that the outcome will be that no candidate is elected, depending on how the voting requirement is worded.

[sMargaret]

All 12 directors will be re-elected or elected for an upcoming term on a conference call. The eligible voters, numbering eighteen, will cast the votes and a majority vote of the quorum (9) will elect the directors (new bylaws reduced the number of directors.)

Question: If voters abstain and/or leave the conference while the voting is in process, thus reducing the majority vote number of 9, will the election be invalid?

As noted, the conference call portion needs to be specifically authorized by your bylaws or local laws.

If this was a physical meeting, and if the quorum requirement is 9 (half of your membership), then you'd be OK to lose individual people as long as you still have at least 9 members in the room. It would require a majority vote of those voting - unless your bylaws were to specify something different.

[Gary Novosielski]

Is "majority vote of the quorum" something that is in your bylaws? Or is it something you believe (incorrectly) is some rule in RONR? Or elsewhere?

[Dan Honemann]

Fortunately, it appears that the fact that this organization is alleged to be an organization described in Section 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) of the Internal Revenue Code has absolutely no bearing on the question asked, because, if it did, no one here on this Forum would be allowed to respond.

Answers here are based upon the rules in RONR, not tax law.

[Guest Georgia Nielsen]

I need to know why no one on this Forum would be allowed to respond to an organization described in Section 501 © 3 of the IRS?

I made a description of the organization and I am not asking a question on tax law.

[Dan Honemann]

I need to know why no one on this Forum would be allowed to respond to an organization described in Section 501 © 3 of the IRS?

No, you don't, because no one has said any such thing.

I made a description of the organization and I am not asking a question on tax law.

Yes, you described your organization as being an organization described in Sec. 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) of the Internal Revenue Code, and, because you are not asking a question about tax law, this description was, and is, completely irrelevant. Had this been something we needed to know in order to answer your question, then your question would be one about tax law, and we on this Forum do not respond to questions about tax law.

[Gary Novosielski]

I need to know why no one on this Forum would be allowed to respond to an organization described in Section 501 © 3 of the IRS?

I made a description of the organization and I am not asking a question on tax law.

Well, you didn't answer my question, which is the reason I couldn't respond. Do you want an answer, or not?

[Dan Honemann]

Well, you didn't answer my question, which is the reason I couldn't respond. Do you want an answer, or not?

Actually, posts 2, 3, and 4 provided Mr. Nielsen with excellent responses, and if Mr. Nielsen says that the answer to your question is "yes, it's in our bylaws", it's highly unlikely that either you or I will be able to improve upon them. Or even if he says "no".

[Guest Nancy N.]

... Mr. Nielsen ... his ...

In your neighborhood, "Georgia" (or, for the fussy, "georgia") is a boy's name?

CT 4

[Guest Nancy N.]

In your neighborhood, "Georgia" (or, for the fussy, "georgia") is a boy's name?

CT 4

(It occurs to me with horror that this observation, though valid, opens me to to the retort that asks whether in my neighborhood "Nancy" is a boy's name. Sheesh, comeuppance, and something about retard-hoisting.)

CT 2

[Guest Luger Axehandle (ret.)]

(It occurs to me with horror that this observation, though valid, opens me to to the retort that asks whether in my neighborhood "Nancy" is a boy's name. Sheesh, comeuppance, and something about retard-hoisting.)

CT 2

Oh, my. Possibly the typo of the year award here. I hope.

[Gary Novosielski]

For 'tis the sport to have the engineer

Hoist with his own retard: and 't shall go hard

But I will delve one yard below their minds,

And blow them at the moon:

[David A Foulkes]

That must be a quote from Spamlet.