QUORUM DOCUMENT

[Guest KCP]

Can the Bylaws refer the quorum numbers to the Standing Rules which are provided and read prior to each meeting?

[jstackpo]

Sure. But be careful what you wish for.

For example: if the bylaws say something like "The standing rules will determine the quorum for a meeting", then what is the required quorum yhat has to be present to allow for the adoption of those standing rules? You can't have your quorum ahead of time and then after the standing rules are adopted - "cake and eating it too".

[Guest KCP]

Sure. But be careful what you wish for.

For example: if the bylaws say something like "The standing rules will determine the quorum for a meeting", then what is the required quorum yhat has to be present to allow for the adoption of those standing rules? You can't have your quorum ahead of time and then after the standing rules are adopted - "cake and eating it too".

For clarity, the Standing Rules state the quorum numbers and have been approved by a simple majority of the members in attendance. I understand the response to be that the quorum number does not actually have to be in the Bylaws, and a statement in the Bylaws that the quorum numbers are as listed in the Standing Rules.

[hmtcastle]

the Standing Rules . . . are . . . read prior to each meeting

Doesn't that seems like a waste of time?

Further, what's the point of not putting the quorum requirement in the bylaws? Do you want it to be easily changed? I don't see the problem Mr. Stackpole sees but I'm curious as to the rationale.

[David A Foulkes]

Well now, I'm a bit confused. I thought Standing Rules were those which applied outside the meeting, such as what membership dues were, or perhaps how much mileage compensation might be for travel, or if there were a discretionary fund for the Treasurer (as examples), yes? And I didn't think they needed to be read (or even adopted) at each meeting. Once adopted they are in force, yes?

So.... it would seem by responses so far that there isn't anything in RONR that explicitly prohibits putting the quorum value in these rules, but it also seems the only advantage is that the quorum rule can be amended easier than if a bylaw, and that may or may not be a good thing.

At some point, before the standing rule defining a quorum is adopted, another quorum value must be in place, most likely then the "default" of majority of voting members. I would think this would have to come into play in the absence of a bylaw defining quorum then, ergo the Standing Rule. Adopting a Standing Rule that defines a quorum, and also amending the bylaws to include the language that points to the SRs for quorum definition, rather than simply putting it in the bylaws, seems a lot of work.

[Gary c Tesser]

David, see p. 18, and especially lines 9 - 10 for a good example of an in-meeting standing rule.

That Guest_KCP_'s group likes to read their standing rules at the beginning of each meeting is unnecessary, but if they like it, at least it keeps them out of the neighborhood bars. (Means more room there for us Two Fisted Parliamentarians.)

And yes, they are in force until they aren't (see fn. p. 106).

David's second paragraph (just a short sentence, actually, but why quibble, other than that typing is fun) says it all. Once they set the bylaws to point to a standing rule that sets the quorum -- not really a lot of work unless you're, say, neurasthenic or from Connecticut -- they get to have more flexibility in deciding what their quorum is. As Dr Stackpole and Mr Foulkes pointed out, maybe or maybe not a good thing.

_______

N. B. I was reminded of "neurasthenic" by its use in Robert B. Parker's "Rough Weather," which I read last week. (Some regular readers seem as if they would appreciate knowing where unusual words come to us, rather than appearing magically from the aether. That's why I mentioned Robert Sheckley's "Dimension of Miracles" as my source for "cyclothymic" a few days ago.)

R.I.P., Mr Parker. Sorely missed.

[Guest KCP]

The membership numbers change annually and to get the quorum or any other amendment requires submission of the Bylaws to the National organization for the National Board Bylaws Committee to review and approve the change, which can take months. That is the reason for placing the quorum numbers in the Standing Rules. I gather from the discussions that this reading step takes time, however a lot less than resubmitting the quorum change as members transfer out to other sites.

So, is this a feasable choice to place the quorum number in the SR?

Thanks all

[Guest KCP]

The membership numbers change annually and to get the quorum or any other amendment requires submission of the Bylaws to the National organization for the National Board Bylaws Committee to review and approve the change, which can take months. That is the reason for placing the quorum numbers in the Standing Rules. I gather from the discussions that this reading step takes time, however a lot less than resubmitting the quorum change as members transfer out to other sites.

So, is this a feasable choice to place the quorum number in the SR?

[David A Foulkes]

The membership numbers change annually and to get the quorum or any other amendment requires submission of the Bylaws to the National organization for the National Board Bylaws Committee to review and approve the change, which can take months. That is the reason for placing the quorum numbers in the Standing Rules. I gather from the discussions that this reading step takes time, however a lot less than resubmitting the quorum change as members transfer out to other sites.

So, is this a feasable choice to place the quorum number in the SR?

Oohhhh.... wait a minute..... are you setting your quorum to an exact number (25, 100, 1000)? Or is it phrased as such to take into account changes in membership? By which I mean, "a quorum shall be a majority of (or 30% of, or one-quarter of) the membership." By the latter, the quorum adjusts to fit the size of the membership. A majority of 100 members is 51. If 20 members depart, the quorum is now 41. No need to rewrite the bylaws or standing rules.

Or am I reading your last post(s) wrong?

[Josh Martin]

Well now, I'm a bit confused. I thought Standing Rules were those which applied outside the meeting

Generally, yes, but not always. While I agree that the particular rule appears to be more properly in the nature of a rule of order, if the Bylaws say that the quorum shall be specified in the standing rules, then that's that.

[David A Foulkes]

Generally, yes, but not always. While I agree that the particular rule appears to be more properly in the nature of a rule of order, if the Bylaws say that the quorum shall be specified in the standing rules, then that's that.

Fair enough. Thanks.