BabbsJohnson Posted July 8, 2015 at 10:11 PM Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 at 10:11 PM Lets say there is aboard of 7 people, and four of them are protesting something about the board, either a custom, rule, or person they do not like. If their protest takes on the form of refusing to attend a meeting (whether agreed upon as group is unknown). Is that their perogative to choose, or is there a name for such an action? Summary: protest thoughts, possible hub or spoke meeting by phone or email to agree to carry out an action (such as abscence from a meeting) and is this a problem, and does it have a name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted July 8, 2015 at 10:14 PM Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 at 10:14 PM You may be thinking of "breaking quorum". I think it usually refers to a situation when a sufficient number of members leave a meeting, but not showing up in the first place will have the same effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabbsJohnson Posted July 8, 2015 at 10:29 PM Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 at 10:29 PM Arethere negative connotations associated with such actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 8, 2015 at 10:32 PM Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 at 10:32 PM Lets say there is aboard of 7 people, and four of them are protesting something about the board, either a custom, rule, or person they do not like. If their protest takes on the form of refusing to attend a meeting (whether agreed upon as group is unknown). Is that their perogative to choose, or is there a name for such an action? Summary: protest thoughts, possible hub or spoke meeting by phone or email to agree to carry out an action (such as abscence from a meeting) and is this a problem, and does it have a name?What you're describing is not discussed (let alone named) in RONR, but if you search for the term "quorum busting," you'll find that this tactic has a long and fascinating history in legislative assemblies. Such a tactic is generally frowned upon, but it appears that in this case the members in question constitute a majority of the board, so there's not really anything that can be done about it.On the other hand, since the members in question constitute a majority of the board, I don't understand why they feel the need to resort to such tactics, rather than simply changing whatever it is they don't like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted July 8, 2015 at 11:22 PM Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 at 11:22 PM Are there negative connotations associated with such actions? You could try replacing board members who won't attend board meetings with board members who will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted July 9, 2015 at 02:02 PM Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 at 02:02 PM Many organizations have rules to the effect that if a board member misses a certain number of meetings he or she is out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted July 13, 2015 at 12:25 AM Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 at 12:25 AM Many organizations have rules to the effect that if a board member misses a certain number of meetings he or she is out. But is missing a meeting that doesn't take place because of a lack of a quorum really missing a meeting? :-) I do believe, though, that when this particular point has come up in other discussions on this forum, most opinions have been that the meeting did in fact take place but the assembly couldn't do much and the meeting was very short due to the lack of a quorum. Now, if nobody showed up or if those who did show up just stood drinking coffee or sipping Scotch at the bar and decided to go home after a while without anybody calling the meeting to order, noting the absence of a quorum, taking steps to obtain a quorum, taking a recess or adjourning, I suppose it could be argued that the meeting never took place. I don't think that's really the issue in Nosey's case, though. What seems to be happening in his case isn't all that unusual. I've even seen members hang around outside the building and in the hallway outside the meeting room in the hopes of forcing the meeting to adjourn due to the absence of a quorum, but wanting to be close enough to enter the meeting room and participate if it turned out that a quorum was present and the meeting was going to take place with them or without them. At that point, they decided that it would be best that they be part of the meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 13, 2015 at 10:57 PM Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 at 10:57 PM But is missing a meeting that doesn't take place because of a lack of a quorum really missing a meeting? :-)Yes. I do believe, though, that when this particular point has come up in other discussions on this forum, most opinions have been that the meeting did in fact take place but the assembly couldn't do much and the meeting was very short due to the lack of a quorum. It's more than a matter of opinion; RONR says so (p. 347):"But if a quorum fails to appear at a regular or properly called meeting, the inability to transact business does not detract from the fact that the society's rules requiring the meeting to be held were complied with and the meeting was convened—even though it had to adjourn immediately." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabbsJohnson Posted July 14, 2015 at 09:31 AM Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 at 09:31 AM I don't think that's really the issue in Nosey's case, though. What seems to be happening in his case isn't all that unusual. I've even seen members hang around outside the building and in the hallway outside the meeting room in the hopes of forcing the meeting to adjourn due to the absence of a quorum, but wanting to be close enough to enter the meeting room and participate if it turned out that a quorum was present and the meeting was going to take place with them or without them. At that point, they decided that it would be best that they be part of the meeting.Actually its more like this: several members of a board communicate ahead of time, planning to not attend a meeting in some sort of protest. So they talk on the phone, or by email, and all agree not to go so there won't be a quorum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted July 14, 2015 at 01:57 PM Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 at 01:57 PM It's more than a matter of opinion; RONR says so (p. 347):"But if a quorum fails to appear at a regular or properly called meeting, the inability to transact business does not detract from the fact that the society's rules requiring the meeting to be held were complied with and the meeting was convened—even though it had to adjourn immediately." But that assumes the meeting was convened. We've seen (too) many instances in this forum where meetings have not been called to order (i.e. convened) because not enough members showed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 14, 2015 at 02:36 PM Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 at 02:36 PM But that assumes the meeting was convened. We've seen (too) many instances in this forum where meetings have not been called to order (i.e. convened) because not enough members showed up. If we're talking about a regular meeting, I think it can be said that any member who was not in the place where the meeting was supposed to be held at the time it was supposed to be, or actually was, held, have "missed the meeting," regardless of whether the meeting was called to order. However, it probably makes no difference at all as far as the rules in RONR are concerned. Think about this. When the chair says, "The meeting will be in order," does anyone think: "Which meeting? Oh, the meeting that exists only because it has just been called to order, although it has not yet come to order"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.