NUN Posted September 17, 2017 at 04:47 AM Report Share Posted September 17, 2017 at 04:47 AM In a not-for profit religious corporation the members elect the trustees who in-turn elect officers. Total trustees 16, total officers 6. The minority group is 6 trustees and they are being bypassed and the officer are not disclosing o r doing things which are not according to bylaws. the 6 members called for a special Board meeting to discuss these issues. The President sent the notice of the Board meeting to all but only seven attended the meeting, the 6 who called and the President. Because of lack of quorum the meeting was not held. What is the responsibility of the officers to attend the duly called board meeting. Can they be forced to attend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted September 17, 2017 at 04:58 AM Report Share Posted September 17, 2017 at 04:58 AM Only a legislative assembly can use Call of the House to compel attendance. Your rules could be amended to provide for penalties for non-attendance. For example, some organizations provide that board members lose their board position if they miss 3 consecutive meetings. You can't force people to attend, though, at least not without committing a crime. Edited to add: Laws such as kidnapping are not procedural laws, and so the fact that a motion involves kidnapping someone doesn't mean it's out of order, just that it's a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted September 17, 2017 at 08:28 AM Report Share Posted September 17, 2017 at 08:28 AM 3 hours ago, NUN said: What is the responsibility of the officers to attend the duly called board meeting. They have a responsibility to attend. 3 hours ago, NUN said: Can they be forced to attend? Board members could be disciplined for failing to attend board meetings, including removal from the board, but this power likely rests with the membership, not the board. I concur with Mr. Kass that the board cannot compel attendance in the same way that a legislative assembly can, which involves arresting absent members. 3 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: Your rules could be amended to provide for penalties for non-attendance. For example, some organizations provide that board members lose their board position if they miss 3 consecutive meetings. Board members may be disciplined for missing meetings even without such rules, although if the desire is to make removal automatic, that would certainly require an amendment to the bylaws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted September 17, 2017 at 01:23 PM Report Share Posted September 17, 2017 at 01:23 PM Looking at this slightly differently, it might be better if the number of members that can call a meeting be at least a quorum. It seems clear that the majority does not support what you are doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted September 17, 2017 at 03:10 PM Report Share Posted September 17, 2017 at 03:10 PM 10 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: Only a legislative assembly can use Call of the House to compel attendance. Your rules could be amended to provide for penalties for non-attendance. For example, some organizations provide that board members lose their board position if they miss 3 consecutive meetings. You can't force people to attend, though, at least not without committing a crime. Edited to add: Laws such as kidnapping are not procedural laws, and so the fact that a motion involves kidnapping someone doesn't mean it's out of order, just that it's a bad idea. I have seen By-laws that state it's three meetings in a one year period without 'valid' reason. Normally that would mean you are able to attend but didn't bother to attend. Being sick or at work would normally be acceptable reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted September 18, 2017 at 05:01 PM Report Share Posted September 18, 2017 at 05:01 PM On 9/17/2017 at 11:10 AM, Rev Ed said: I have seen By-laws that state it's three meetings in a one year period without 'valid' reason. Normally that would mean you are able to attend but didn't bother to attend. Being sick or at work would normally be acceptable reasons. Someone still has to decide whether the reason is "valid" or not, so this strikes me as unnecessarily vague. I would recommend that the language "three unexcused absences" be used instead. Whether a given absence is excused or not can be unambiguously decided by a Request to Be Excused From a Duty, offered before or after the fact, or moved by another member on the occasion of the absent member's absence. I would expect nearly all such requests to be granted routinely by unanimous consent, but in particular cases of abuse, or absence from a particularly critical meeting, the validity of the reason for the request might become a matter of debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted September 19, 2017 at 01:52 AM Report Share Posted September 19, 2017 at 01:52 AM On 9/16/2017 at 9:47 PM, NUN said: Because of lack of quorum the meeting was not held. The meeting takes place even if it adjourned immediately due to lack of quorum and it should have minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted September 19, 2017 at 02:21 AM Report Share Posted September 19, 2017 at 02:21 AM Real short ones, to be sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted September 21, 2017 at 10:45 PM Report Share Posted September 21, 2017 at 10:45 PM On 9/18/2017 at 1:01 PM, Gary Novosielski said: Someone still has to decide whether the reason is "valid" or not, so this strikes me as unnecessarily vague. I would recommend that the language "three unexcused absences" be used instead. Whether a given absence is excused or not can be unambiguously decided by a Request to Be Excused From a Duty, offered before or after the fact, or moved by another member on the occasion of the absent member's absence. I would expect nearly all such requests to be granted routinely by unanimous consent, but in particular cases of abuse, or absence from a particularly critical meeting, the validity of the reason for the request might become a matter of debate. True. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts