losing a quorum and actions taken after a loss of quorum

[Josh Martin]

Gang; I've been reviewing my questions and your comments of the last few days and trying to come up with a course of action consistent with what I think is the best way to proceed, both for the welfare of our club and in a manner consistent with the applicable by-laws and Robert's rules,  Right or wrong, I'm planning to forward this entire discussion to the President and Vice-President for their review. Then I'll try to convince them -unless they agree with my approach which follows- i.e. that we should review the situation from 6 years ago, including the Annual Meeting minutes and the actions taken without a quorum, and resurrect the questions for discussion and a vote by our current membership.

 

The President may make a ruling at the next club meeting that the motions in question are null and void due to the lack of a quorum. He may do this on his own initiative or in response to a Point of Order on the subject. If the President does not make the ruling himself and rules the Point of Order not well taken, the next step would be an Appeal. A majority vote is required to overturn the chair's ruling.

 

Finally, assuming that (one way or another) the actions are indeed declared null and void, you could then make a motion to Ratify the motions which were adopted in the absence of a quorum.

[bobby101]

Josh: When you say, "the next club meeting" does that mean the next meeting of the board (where I understand I have no right to speak) or the next membership meeting which is coming up in October where I do have a right to raise a point of order and now know exactly how to raise it and to whom I should direct and how to respond. To your final point, I do not want to move to ratify the motion(s) since I feel strongly that the particular  by-law change is contrary to the interest of the club and its membership. This particular by-law was put forth by the board in an attempt to take away the right of a member (and thus all members) to appeal to the membership a decision of the board. And this board was very concerned that the member being sanctioned could mobilize enough members to defeat the proposed by-law. My entire point which I may not have articulated is that the board had a personal interest in passing this by-law so they could not be questioned by the membership on their actions. The board wanted this change passed so they didn't want to address the quorum issue/question I raised, a board member, out of order,made an incorrect statement and the presiding officer to whom my question on the presence of a quorum was addressed did not respond. I think I now better understand the points that have been made on the proper way to raise a point of order and the procedures to be followed under Robert's rules. The reality of our annual meetings and how they are conducted and run collide with how they should be run. i don't know whether you've gone through all my comments and the readers' responses above or are just responding to this particular part of my most recent posting. Mr. Simons

[Josh Martin]

When you say, "the next club meeting" does that mean the next meeting of the board (where I understand I have no right to speak) or the next membership meeting which is coming up in October where I do have a right to raise a point of order and now know exactly how to raise it and to whom I should direct and how to respond.

 

The next meeting of the membership.

 

To your final point, I do not want to move to ratify the motion(s) since I feel strongly that the particular  by-law change is contrary to the interest of the club and its membership. This particular by-law was put forth by the board in an attempt to take away the right of a member (and thus all members) to appeal to the membership a decision of the board. And this board was very concerned that the member being sanctioned could mobilize enough members to defeat the proposed by-law. My entire point which I may not have articulated is that the board had a personal interest in passing this by-law so they could not be questioned by the membership on their actions. The board wanted this change passed so they didn't want to address the quorum issue/question I raised, a board member, out of order,made an incorrect statement and the presiding officer to whom my question on the presence of a quorum was addressed did not respond.

 

Well, in that case, if the motions are declared null and void, don't do anything, but be prepared to speak in opposition in case someone else moves to Ratify the actions.

[bobby101]

Josh: Thank you for your helpful advice.     Now to Gary's response. First of all, I Have Learned a Lesson and will make sure if I raise a point of order that it's properly addressed and that I get a ruling from the presiding officer. Isn't the vote count which is part of the Annual meeting minutes (as an attachment) sufficient as, "clear and convincing truth" that a quorum was not present when the matter was voted on? There were 31 votes cast against a quorum requirement of 38. The matter  re-surfaced last year because on a recent board action against me, I had no right to appeal. (The right to appeal was part of our by-laws going back to 1989) Without going into too much detail, which I can provide if you or anyone else is interested, I was sanctioned by this board. I had brought charges against the board in 3 areas of distinct by-law violations ( one involving a member sanctioned without giving him his due process rights; a second where the board voted on an issue that was a membership issue and despite a majority board vote to go forward, the president unilaterally decided not to do it; and the third involving me where my right to meet with my accuser was denied).  Each of these board actions is contrary to rights stated in our by-laws and were clearly violated.. You can imagine what my chances were of getting a fair appeal hearing in bringing these charges and having them adjudicated by the very people charged with the violating the by-laws. If that sounds like a dysfunctional board to you, I think you've got it right. Like to hear your thoughts. Mr. Simons

[Josh Martin]

Isn't the vote count which is part of the Annual meeting minutes (as an attachment) sufficient as, "clear and convincing truth" that a quorum was not present when the matter was voted on? There were 31 votes cast against a quorum requirement of 38.

 

It's certainly conceivable that seven members abstained. In any event, it will be up to the chair (and ultimately the assembly, if the chair's ruling is appealed) to determine whether the proof is clear and convincing enough.

[bobby101]

J: I was there. Nobody abstained from voting. There were only 31 people remaining at the meeting when the vote was taken. And, as I mentioned before, the board was disproportionately among the remnant who voted for something the board wanted to become part of the by-laws. My view:   I'm all for following both the by-laws and Robert's rules (as our by-laws state) but when a blind adherence to the letter of Robert's rules goes so contrary to a common sense approach to an issue, then I have to dissent. Mr. Simons