Policy being used that was passed without a quorum

[Cali Girl]

I have a question regarding a policy that was passed without a quorum and now being used since the handbook it is in has been ratified & endorsed.

A policy was passed April 14th with 10 of 21 members present. The bylaws state a quorum is a majority of voting members of the association so I assume this means there was no quorum on April 14th.

The board then ratified and endorsed the entire handbook which included this policy on August 31st so they are proceeding with the policy in question. I am wondering if the ratifying and endorsing of the handbook makes this policy valid even though it was initially passed without a quorum?

Thanks

[Robert B Fish]

I am wondering if the ratifying and endorsing of the handbook makes this policy valid even though it was initially passed without a quorum?

Thanks

If the board passed the policy during an inquorate meeting and later ratified the policy during a quorate meeting, that latter action validates the policy. Up to that point, the previous action was null and void.

-Bob

[Cali Girl]

Thank You

[Trina]

I have a question regarding a policy that was passed without a quorum and now being used since the handbook it is in has been ratified & endorsed.

A policy was passed April 14th with 10 of 21 members present. The bylaws state a quorum is a majority of voting members of the association so I assume this means there was no quorum on April 14th.

The board then ratified and endorsed the entire handbook which included this policy on August 31st so they are proceeding with the policy in question. I am wondering if the ratifying and endorsing of the handbook makes this policy valid even though it was initially passed without a quorum?

Thanks

If the board has the authority to make such a policy, and if the vote margin of the board action was adequate, then all sounds in order at this point. That doesn't mean it was proper for the inquorate meeting to take the action that it did, but the error doesn't appear to have lasting repercussions, given your description of what happened.

What kind of policy? And is it a policy the board has authority to establish?

[Cali Girl]

It depends what you see as lasting repercussions. We are a Minor Hockey Association so business passed in April & August would not affect anything until September, during evaluations. In other words what was done in late Spring & early fall would not become general knowledge until the winter season started.

The policy that was amended was with regard to players that are excelling in hockey and should be allowed to play in an age division higher than they qualify for from birthdate (Underage player movement)

The policy was changed to read the player must meet "a top five ranking in the evaluation process in the upper age division."

The repercussions were as follows:

No players were allowed to move from the Initiation to Novice levels as these levels are split evenly and not ranked in evaluations. These are the 2 youngest levels of hockey where often the GREATEST difference in skill level and moves are quite often justified from a player development standpoint.

A player that EXCELLED in the Atom group during evaluations as an underage player was denied movement up which could potentially stall his development as a hockey player as he has been forced to remain at a level where he will not be challenged.

As an aside, we were told the evaluators did not rank the players so in effect no one ranked within the top 5 as there was no top 5!

Also it does not read top 5 overall and our association offers 3 levels in the upper age division but the board will not inform if the player ranked top 5 in ANY of the levels!

Anyway it would appear we are up the creek so to speak on this one as the board was able to pass the policy in the off season without anyone being the wiser until it was too late.

[Trina]

It depends what you see as lasting repercussions. We are a Minor Hockey Association so business passed in April & August would not affect anything until September, during evaluations. In other words what was done in late Spring & early fall would not become general knowledge until the winter season started.

The policy that was amended was with regard to players that are excelling in hockey and should be allowed to play in an age division higher than they qualify for from birthdate (Underage player movement)

The policy was changed to read the player must meet "a top five ranking in the evaluation process in the upper age division."

The repercussions were as follows:

....

I'm sorry, when I said 'no repercussions' I was speaking only from the parliamentary point of view. Obviously the enforcement of an improperly adopted policy did have real world consequences in your organization.

Anyway it would appear we are up the creek so to speak on this one as the board was able to pass the policy in the off season without anyone being the wiser until it was too late.

Again, is the board authorized to make decisions on such policies? Your comment about 'without anyone being the wiser' suggests that there is some other group (general membership?) which might have made a different decision. Perhaps that group can still change the policy. You may want to read Official Interpretation 2006_13, on this site, to see if what is said there is relevant to your situation:

http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_13