Joshua Katz Posted December 8, 2019 at 07:26 PM Report Share Posted December 8, 2019 at 07:26 PM 5 hours ago, Guest Laura T said: As I mentioned earlier, I am fully aware that this organization is doing some things that go against RRoO. What I am interested in are the answers to my original questions as I stated in my first post. Please don't read this as an attack - the nuances and specifics of RRoO are important - however, having an organization do the minimal correctly right now is a goal. Okay. In what way have we not answered the question? Please let us know what is unaddressed and we'll try to help. I agree that the sign in sheets, while some evidence, are not clear and convincing evidence - although I'm not clear, as a general matter, how we're supposed to apply evidentiary standards in parliamentary procedure, since we can't look into people's hearts when they vote on appeals. Nonetheless, if that was all there was, I would not vote on an appeal in a manner that reflected the lack of quorum. However, if all or most of the people there said there wasn't a quorum, I'd vote in a manner reflecting the lack of a quorum. I don't think I agree that you should drop the matter, at least not if you can get people who were there to say there was no quorum. I'm puzzled why you wouldn't be interested in the question of whether the motion also violated the bylaws, but that is fine. I'll just add that I don't think following your bylaws is a nuance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted December 8, 2019 at 08:29 PM Report Share Posted December 8, 2019 at 08:29 PM I agree that the sign in sheets, while evidence of whether a quorum was present, are not conclusive in that regard. It is up to the assembly at a meeting to determine how much weight to attribute to them. In my own mind, and knowing only what we have been told, I do not view the sign in sheets as clear and convincing evidence of whether a quorum was present. The closer the call, the more inclusive they are. We don't know how strictly the members follow the "sign in" rule (or custom), who might have arrived early before the sheets were put our or arrived late but failed to sign in, who did sign in but left early, who might have signed in for someone not actually present, etc. While RONR says that "clear and convincing" proof of the lack of a quorum is needed in order to invalidate action taken after the fact, it is ultimately up to the assembly (the membership) to determine whether the evidence is clear and convincing. The members may feel that the sign in sheets are accurate enough that they should be accepted at face value. It may or may not be best to just drop the matter. If it is a serious item of contention and members are likely to argue for months or years about whether the motions were validly adopted, it may be best to resolve it one way or the other. For someone to raise a point of order that a quorum was not present and for the chair (and the assembly if there is an appeal) is probably the best way to do that. If the chair (and the assembly if there is an appeal) determine that a quorum was indeed present, then that should be the end of the matter. If the determination is that a quorum was not present, then the action taken can simply be ratified or the motions can be presented and voted on again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts