Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Quorum


Guest hswolfmaniac

Recommended Posts

At one of our meetings after the football season (2017-2018) started, a vote to determine whether the NFL games would be shown on our televisions at our organization was taken. The majority vote was to not have any NFL games shown. No exemptions were made at the time. This past week one of our officers called for an impromptu quorum of five (5) in order to address whether to show the Super Bowl game next month, February 2018. (Our next meeting will not have convened until after the Super Bowl game.) The quorum voted to show the Super Bowl game. Was this officer correct in convening a quorum thereby bypassing the memberships' vote to not have any football games shown or was the officer wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

In order to have any validity, action such as you have described can only be taken at a regular or properly called meeting, and this "impromptu quorum of five" doesn't appear to be either one. 

Thank you so much for your prompt reply. No, it was not a regular meeting. Our January meeting was cancelled due to various officer illnesses so there was no opportunity to discuss this (if this particular subject had been realized prior to our January meeting, I have no knowledge). I tried finding this particular scenario (or something similar) in Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised 11th Edition (RONR), but I could not especially since I am very much an amateur when it comes to RONR. I have attached an email transcript with the names blackened. Thanks again.

2017-01a Super Bowl Quorum.docx

2017-01a Super Bowl Quorum.docx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest you do a bit more redacting, and take the ones that have there down.  There is identifying information (and yes, I have found identifying information that should have been redacted in FBI background checks). 

The first line says:  "A quorum of only those present ... "  A quorum is the number of members needed to conduct a meeting, so that line is nonsense. 

Unless your bylaws say differently, the board, or some group of members, are bound by the decisions of the member's meeting (p. 483, ll. 9-13).  Technically, the people forcing football on the group could be subject to disciplinary action.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The supposed action they took is utter nonsense.  A meeting does not consist of hand-selecting a number of people equal to a quorum and deciding whatever you want.  That is the opposite of the deliberative process.  Your organization made a decision - not to show any games - and that others are unhappy about it is, indeed, unfortunate, but their nonsensical behavior changes nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and if you want to demonstrate how stupid their claims are, just get 5 friends together and vote not to show the Superbowl, then send them an email saying it's truly unfortunate if that upsets them.  Or, you know, get 5 friends together and vote to sell all the organization's property and split the money amongst the 5 of you, then ask why that is improper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, J. J. said:

I would suggest you do a bit more redacting, and take the ones that have there down.  There is identifying information (and yes, I have found identifying information that should have been redacted in FBI background checks). 

The first line says:  "A quorum of only those present ... "  A quorum is the number of members needed to conduct a meeting, so that line is nonsense. 

Unless your bylaws say differently, the board, or some group of members, are bound by the decisions of the member's meeting (p. 483, ll. 9-13).  Technically, the people forcing football on the group could be subject to disciplinary action.

 

 

Thank you for the reference. That helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

The supposed action they took is utter nonsense.  A meeting does not consist of hand-selecting a number of people equal to a quorum and deciding whatever you want.  That is the opposite of the deliberative process.  Your organization made a decision - not to show any games - and that others are unhappy about it is, indeed, unfortunate, but their nonsensical behavior changes nothing.

Thank you for your comments. Enlightening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Oh, and if you want to demonstrate how stupid their claims are, just get 5 friends together and vote not to show the Superbowl, then send them an email saying it's truly unfortunate if that upsets them.  Or, you know, get 5 friends together and vote to sell all the organization's property and split the money amongst the 5 of you, then ask why that is improper.

Very enlightening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...