Guest Carla Posted August 16, 2010 at 01:17 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 at 01:17 PM If you have 4 members present , which is a quorum in our instance, and 3 there are ineligible to vote and 3 others are absent, but they could vote, can a vote of one who is present make a decision for the board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted August 16, 2010 at 01:23 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 at 01:23 PM Yes, although I would question why the other 3 weren't eligible to vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted August 16, 2010 at 01:29 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 at 01:29 PM I think it depends on how/why the three present members became ineligible to vote on the question.'... a quorum in an assembly is the number of voting members who must be present in order that business can be legally transacted.' (RONR p. 334)If the three people aren't voting because of a perceived conflict of interest (i.e. they can vote, but choose not to), they are still voting members. If they are actually deprived of their right to vote on the question by some rule of the organization, I don't think they are 'voting members' any longer, and therefore shouldn't be counted toward quorum.Stay tuned for other opinions though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Carla Posted August 16, 2010 at 01:57 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 at 01:57 PM I think it depends on how/why the three present members became ineligible to vote on the question.'... a quorum in an assembly is the number of voting members who must be present in order that business can be legally transacted.' (RONR p. 334)If the three people aren't voting because of a perceived conflict of interest (i.e. they can vote, but choose not to), they are still voting members. If they are actually deprived of their right to vote on the question by some rule of the organization, I don't think they are 'voting members' any longer, and therefore shouldn't be counted toward quorum.Stay tuned for other opinions though...So do I understand this correctly to mean that because the three absent ARE eligible to vote, but not present, business cannot legally be transacted, thus the one member present and eligible, cannot make a decision for the board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted August 16, 2010 at 02:04 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 at 02:04 PM So do I understand this correctly to mean that because the three absent ARE eligible to vote, but not present, business cannot legally be transacted, thus the one member present and eligible, cannot make a decision for the board?No, as long as a quorum is present, you can forget about the absent members.The question is whether the present members who didn't vote didn't so by choice or because their right to vote was somehow suspended. If the latter, there was only one "voting member" present, not enough for a quorum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted August 16, 2010 at 05:45 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 at 05:45 PM If you have 4 members present , which is a quorum in our instance, and 3 there are ineligible to vote and 3 others are absent, but they could vote, can a vote of one who is present make a decision for the board?Carla - a further thought.... unless your bylaws stipulate a quorum of 4 (as opposed to what I interpret as a majority of 7 board members) and if these three are in fact not eligible to vote at all (and it wasn't just for the short term of this one meeting or this one vote), then you're quorum might be only 3!! Still not enough to hold a legal meeting in this case, of course.So, what's the deal with their ineligibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted August 16, 2010 at 05:59 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 at 05:59 PM (and it wasn't just for the short term of this one meeting or this one vote)Why, given your scenario, couldn't the quorum be three for just this one meeting and just this one vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted August 16, 2010 at 06:34 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 at 06:34 PM Why, given your scenario, couldn't the quorum be three for just this one meeting and just this one vote?The "flexi-quorum" approach? Hmmm.... an interesting concept.... quorum value fluctuating during a meeting based on who is and is not eligible to vote at any given time? So 7 board members present at call to order, quorum of 4 satisfied. "Restrictive" motion comes up in business, during which 3 members ineligible to vote, quorum requirement drops to 3. Could work I guess. Of course, if the meeting started with these original four (quorum met), as soon as business that makes them ineligible voters is brought up, the meeting is inquorate and stuck on the path to adjournment.Anyway, unclear as we are as to the reason for ineligibility, this is all just fun with math anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted August 16, 2010 at 07:04 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 at 07:04 PM The "flexi-quorum" approach? . . . Could work I guess.I'm not advocating it, just pointing out that it might be an inevitable consequence.And if the original poster says the members are ineligible to vote, I have no problem taking that at face value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.