General Meeting, membership votes

[Guest pucksfurcoat]

I am a Board member of a National organization that holds a general meeting once a year, preferably in conjunction with a specific annual event we hold (this is stated in our current bylaws).  This event has, and will be in the future, held at a single location per the BOD (not covered in the bylaws).  A General Meeting has been held every year at this event, but the last time there was a quorum was in 1999.  A Board member recently discovered an approved motion from 1999 and it appears that we have not been following what was dictated in that motion for many many years.   The club population is significantly different than it was in 1999.  Some of the motions approved back in that time are not appropriate currently.  I suspect that we are stuck with any motion approved 1999 prior until we can get a quorum, or change the bylaws - do folks agree?    If this is the case, I anticipate another issue - the only opportunity for input from the membership is at a single meeting that most members do not, and cannot realistically attend because of geography and related travel costs.   Does anyone have suggestions on how I might propose to handle this?  I would like to see a mechanism for members as a whole to have input on important issues. Our bylaws default to Roberts Rules if not specifically covered in the bylaws.  Thanks in advance for your help! 

[Josh Martin]

I suspect that we are stuck with any motion approved 1999 prior until we can get a quorum, or change the bylaws - do folks agree?

 

Sounds about right (and you need a quorum to change the bylaws). When you do get a quorum, the first thing you should probably do is change the quorum to something more reasonable.

 

How has your club managed without a quorum for the past fifteen years? Usually certain things are left to the membership, like electing the board.

 

If this is the case, I anticipate another issue - the only opportunity for input from the membership is at a single meeting that most members do not, and cannot realistically attend because of geography and related travel costs.   Does anyone have suggestions on how I might propose to handle this?  I would like to see a mechanism for members as a whole to have input on important issues. Our bylaws default to Roberts Rules if not specifically covered in the bylaws.

 

Most societies solve this problem either by having a convention instead of a membership meeting (so that delegates are elected to represent various areas, which might be better than a random assortment of members if there is very small attendance) and/or by having some of the most important things (elections, amending the bylaws, etc.) voted on by mail. Any solution will require amending the bylaws, however, so you're back to square one.

[Guest pucksfurcoat]

Thank you for the thoughtful response!

 

The Board is determined every two years.  The President determines a nominating committee, which is approved by the Board.  This past year the President did not nominate the committee by the date prescribed by the bylaws, in fact it was very late.  The nominating committee was assembled quickly and the process rushed.   The chair was an existing Board member (which is allowed in the bylaws and is often the case).  The nominating committee was approved by a vote of the Board.  The bylaws state that the nominated slate is automatically approved unless someone runs against a nominee (details described in the bylaws).  It is a pretty rigorous process to run against the slate, but it is theoretically feasible to run against the nominated slate and win by being voted in by the membership.  Since the bylaws have no provision for a nominating committee being determined past the deadline - could that be challenged?

 

We are in the process of revising the bylaws, which will have to be approved by the parent organization, then voted on by the membership.  I made a motion to lower the quorum, and that was approved when voted on. That does not solve the issue of representation of members from different geographic regions though.   I like the idea of a convention, where all regions and  disciplines could be represented and will present this as an option for the bylaws revision.    I made a motion that current board members seeking re-election could not be on the nominating committee, but it was voted down.  I also made a motion that the bylaws include some specific criteria be considered by the nominating committee (there currently are none), that one was successful.  Any ideas that I could present to revise the bylaws so they can better facilitate representation of the entire membership would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you again!

[Gary c Tesser]

I will have to clip - and - insert.

 

[Guest pocksfurcoat:]

- the only opportunity for input from the membership is at a single meeting that most members do not, and cannot realistically attend because of geography and related travel costs.

 

[GcT:]

One thing about Mr Martin's suggestion about a convention, often the expenses of the delegates are paid by the organization.

 

[Guest pocksfurcoat:]

The President determines a nominating committee ...

 

[GcT:]

RONR explicitly discourages this.

 

[Guest pocksfurcoat:]

...., which is approved by the Board.

 

[GcT:]

Harrumph,.. better, but why invent the wheel as a pentagon and then have the board smooth the edges off?

 

All this stuff about the nominating committee is horrendously sloppy (as if I have to tell you), but wouldn't affect the validity of the elections, if they are done properly.

 

Oy vey.

 

[Guest pocksfurcoat:]

...I made a motion to lower the quorum, and that was approved when voted on....

 

[GcT:]

Without a quorum.   You're kidding, right?

 

[Guest pocksfurcoat:]

... Any ideas that I could present to revise the bylaws ...

 

[GcT:]

Do it with a quorum present, because anything done without a quorum is illegitimate.

 

You're welcome.  Though I think I have rained on your parade.