QUORUM .... Number of officers exceeding established quorum

[Guest Guy Savard]

This is a follow-up to a previous posting and following discussions with colleagues (officers and members of our assembly).

 

Our assembly (service club) has 300 members including 16 officers also referred to as our Executive Committee.  The quorum for our general business meetings is 14 or 3 less than our number of officers.  Our general meeting attendance is typically 30 to 35 but we've had as few as 18 to 25.  

 

Put succinctly, our assembly officers (16) exceeds our established quorum of 14 for our general meetings.  Consequently, it is feasible that our 16 council officers could control the action and the  outcome of any decision or motion made at a given general meeting  -  if they so wish - although I trust this would never happen.   

 

Is there any guidance in RRO that recommends that the quorum for a general assembly be larger than the number of assembly officers?  Any reference to RRO would be most appreciated.  Thank you  

 

Note:   Currently, our By-laws do not establish a quorum for the meetings of our assembly officer.    

[Richard Brown]

This is a follow-up to a previous posting and following discussions with colleagues (officers and members of our assembly).

 

Is there any guidance in RRO that recommends that the quorum for a general assembly be larger than the number of assembly officers?  Any reference to RRO would be most appreciated.  Thank you  

 

Note:   Currently, our By-laws do not establish a quorum for the meetings of our assembly officer.    

The answer to your question that I have bolded is, no, there is no such guidance in RONR.

 

I do not understand the meaning of your last sentence about "a quorum for the meetings of our assembly officer".

[jstackpo]

 

 

Put succinctly, our assembly officers (16) exceeds our established quorum of 14 for our general meetings.  Consequently, it is feasible that our 16 council officers could control the action and the  outcome of any decision or motion made at a given general meeting  -  if they so wish - although I trust this would never happen.   

 

 

This would be true if 14-16 officers were the only people who showed up for a meeting, or the officers there outnumbered the other (regular) members present.

 

Is this the "problem" you have in mind?

 

At any rate RONR says nothing about officers contributing to the presence of a quorum;  what matters is the number of members who show up, irrespective of their "officer" status.

[Edgar Guest]

This is a follow-up to a previous posting . . . 

 

Then you should have continued the same topic.

[Gary Novosielski]

This is a follow-up to a previous posting and following discussions with colleagues (officers and members of our assembly).

 

Our assembly (service club) has 300 members including 16 officers also referred to as our Executive Committee.  The quorum for our general business meetings is 14 or 3 less than our number of officers.  Our general meeting attendance is typically 30 to 35 but we've had as few as 18 to 25.  

 

Put succinctly, our assembly officers (16) exceeds our established quorum of 14 for our general meetings.  Consequently, it is feasible that our 16 council officers could control the action and the  outcome of any decision or motion made at a given general meeting  -  if they so wish - although I trust this would never happen.   

 

Is there any guidance in RRO that recommends that the quorum for a general assembly be larger than the number of assembly officers?  Any reference to RRO would be most appreciated.  Thank you  

 

Note:   Currently, our By-laws do not establish a quorum for the meetings of our assembly officer.    

 

Well, if by "guidance" you mean what would RONR say in the absence of any provisions in your bylaws, then yes there is guidance.

 

RONR would say that the quorum depended solely on the number of members present.  By "members" it means members of the body that is meeting, which is the general membership--so general members.

 

RONR would place no special emphasis on how many "officers" must be present.  If it were possible to reach a quorum without a single officer showing up, then fine, so be it.  

 

Under the rules of RONR, a membership meeting belongs to the members.  Officers have no special place there, except as they happen also to be members of the society.  It's likely that the president would preside, and the secretary would record, but apart from that, a member is a member is a member.

 

But your bylaws apparently do say something, and that's what you have to go by, after you figure out what it actually means.

[g40]

It seems to me that key issue is that the entire general membership has been properly notified on any membership meeting.

[SaintCad]

Put succinctly, our assembly officers (16) exceeds our established quorum of 14 for our general meetings.  Consequently, it is feasible that our 16 council officers could control the action and the  outcome of any decision or motion made at a given general meeting  -  if they so wish - although I trust this would never happen.   

The OP seems relatively straightforward but this made me pause in that I may be missing something.  Why are you so concerned if the 16 officers showed up (thus creating a quorum) and no one else did?  Why don't you fear any subgroup of 14 members controlling the action?

[Guest Guy Savard]

I surely appreciated all of your comments.   It is surely helpful and will allow to better assess and understand the situation.  It is always great and somewhat fun to be on the "learning curve". 

 

Even after having worked (served) as a Federal public servant  (incl. 24 years in the Navy)  I am still learning very single day:  "Lifelong Learning"   THANK YOU ALL.  Most appreciated

Guy

 

 

[jstackpo]

You are most welcome, and come on back (I hesitate to say "on board" as it is an awful pun relative to your past employment) with other questions!