Quorum - Resignations when does the new quorum begin

[Shmuel Gerber]

I can state without equivocation that, as far as the rules of RONR are concerned, "a majority of the members of the board" (or "committee") means a majority of the members of the board (or committee), no matter what Kiefer Sutherland / Tom Kirkman / Jack Bauer might say about it. (Although Jack has some unique methods of persuasion, so I wouldn't want to argue about it with him.)

[Josh Martin]

On 11/13/2016 at 11:23 AM, Guest GuestXIV said:

I disagree that Josh M's citation is clear about the meaning of "member" in the context of quorum.  Definitions aren't necessarily general; they may shift depending on context.

 The definition of quorum specifically references the definition of member on pg. 3.

"As indicated on page 21, a quorum in an assembly is the number of members (see definition, p. 3) who must be present in order that business can be validly transacted." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 345)

The definition of quorum in a particular organization's bylaws, state corporation code, legislature, or television show may or may not be different, and those definitions will apply within those contexts, but the definition of quorum in RONR is clear.

[Gary Novosielski]

My hope that GuestXIV was more interesting in learning the facts than in arguing about them is fading.

[Guest GuestXIV]

(Sorry about my long silence; I've been very busy.)

@Shmuel Gerber: Your tautology doesn't help.  The issue is the meaning of "members" when the governing document says the committee has a particular number of members, but there are vacancies.  In other words, is the quorum a majority of the particular number written in the governing document, or a majority of that number minus the vacancies?

@Josh Martin: Thanks, your citation of "see definition, p. 3" on page 345 is helpful because it implies the definition of "member" on page 3 is intended to inform the meaning of "members" in the definition of "quorum" (on page 21 and elsewhere).  But I think it's not as clear as you say it is; you're still adding an interpretation that the definition on page 3 is further intended to cause a reduction of quorum when members die, etc.  You may be right that the quorum is reduced accordingly, but it's not as clear as would be a plain statement in RONR that "quorum is reduced accordingly when members die, resign, or are expelled even when the bylaws (or other governing document) specify the number of members."  I suspect the reason you believe the language in RONR is clear is that you've also had many experiences and observations of how others have interpreted quorum, which helped shape your own interpretation of the language in RONR.  It's probably very difficult--and maybe impossible--for you to put yourself in the position of someone without those supplementary experiences trying to interpret RONR given only its language.

The 1st Law of Misunderstanding: The author of a message is the best judge of its intended meaning.

The 2nd Law of Misunderstanding: The author of a message is one of the worst judges of how other people will interpret it.

@Gary Novosielski: What you consider "arguing" is my way of eliciting the reasons that support (or fail to adequately support) the claims people make.  It's a worthwhile process because people sometimes base their conclusions on unstated assumptions that don't hold up under scrutiny or that may not apply to the case at hand.  Argument is a fundamental tool in science and philosophy.  Please accept my assurance that I'm interested in ascertaining facts I can have confidence in and that will convince others, not in winning an argument.

 

I'd certainly like to believe the quorum is reduced when members die, resign, or are expelled, because I agree that typically makes more sense than keeping the quorum impossibly high.  And I agree there are clues in RONR that suggest the quorum is indeed reduced accordingly.  Please don't misinterpret my presentation of contrary arguments as an indication that I believe the quorum doesn't reduce.  As I wrote on November 13th, our President (who claimed our committee's quorum is still 4) "often exhibits comprehension problems, even with seemingly plain language, once she's gotten a notion" which makes it likely that none of the reasons presented thus far will be clear enough to convince her that the quorum is a majority of our committee's remaining members.

Here's another reason (not yet mentioned, I think) why it sometimes may make sense NOT to reduce a committee's quorum when members die, resign, etc.: RONR recommends that committees be diverse, and some diversity is likely to be lost when members are lost.  If the lost members represented the interests of a significant subset of the organization's membership, then it may make sense to replace them before the committee continues working; in other words, keeping the quorum fixed protects the organization members not currently represented on the committee.  Here's another reason: Just as two heads are better than one, four are better than three; in other words, keeping the quorum fixed protects the quality of the committee's work.

@Designated Survivor: I've stopped watching, due to so many inaccuracies that I no longer enjoy the show.  The most significant is that under the real law of succession, a Cabinet Secretary acts as President only until there's a Vice President, Speaker of the House, or President Pro Tempore of the Senate who's qualified to be President (35 years old, etc.), whereas in this show it appears that Secretary Kirkman has become President for the remainder of the term (about 3 years).  Under the real law of succession, Congresswoman Hookstraten could have named herself (or anyone) Speaker of the House the morning after the catastrophe, immediately becoming Acting President for the remainder of the term.  Ambitious Congressman MacLeish, after he was unearthed and offered the Speakership by Acting President Kirkman, would have had no reason to decline in hope of later being appointed Vice President. (Since when does a President pick the Speaker of the House?  And since when does the President have the authority to cancel special elections in the States?  And assuming the quorum in the Senate is a majority of the living Senators, why wouldn't the rebellious Governor of Michigan--or some other clever Governor in one of the 36 States in which the Governor can appoint Senators to fill vacancies--have quickly appointed himself Senator, flown to Washington, appointed himself President Pro Tempore, and immediately become Acting President?)

[Dan Honemann]

Silence is golden.

[Clurichan]

THE DEAREST O' THE QUORUM

O May, thy morn was ne'er sae sweet  As the mirk night o' December!

For sparkling was the rosy wine,  And private was the chamber:

And dear was she I dare na name,  But I will ay remember.

And here's to them that, like oursel,  Can push about the jorum!

And here's to them that wish us weel,   May a' that's gude watch o'er 'em!

And here's to them, we dare na tell,  The dearest of the quorum!

--ROBERT BURNS

Edited December 11, 2016 at 11:53 PM by Clurichan
oops: --ROBERT BURNS

[Guest Resignation and quorums]

Soooo....if a Board member resigns and a quorum is not present the resignation is not official until one is because the resignation must...what...be recorded in the minutes to be official? What if the number resigning leases a board without a quorum of members? 

[George Mervosh]

31 minutes ago, Guest Resignation and quorums said:

Soooo....if a Board member resigns and a quorum is not present the resignation is not official until one is because the resignation must...what...be recorded in the minutes to be official? What if the number resigning leases a board without a quorum of members? 

Please see Mr. Gerber's post here  https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-faq-and-information-for-new-members-and-guests/