Approval of Minutes

[Guest Jim]

If a a board ordinarily elects its officers in December, but a new majority will take office on the board in January, is the December election still recognized if the minutes of the December meeting are not approved in January?

[hmtcastle]

If a a board ordinarily elects its officers in December, but a new majority will take office on the board in January, is the December election still recognized if the minutes of the December meeting are not approved in January?

Yes, the approval of minutes (or lack thereof) has absolutely no bearing on the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of any business conducted at the meeting.

[Guest Jim]

Yes, the approval of minutes (or lack thereof) has absolutely no bearing on the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of any business conducted at the meeting.

[Guest Jim]

How would a new majority stop the old majority from selecting officers for the coming year, when the vote takes place in December and the new majority takes office in January?

[hmtcastle]

How would a new majority stop the old majority from selecting officers for the coming year, when the vote takes place in December and the new majority takes office in January?

They can't. But they get to elect officers next December (or whenever the next elections are).

Typically, though, the officers wouldn't be elected until after the new board members take office. Check your bylaws for the proper sequence.

[Guest Jim]

Makes no sense that the new board has to live under the chairmanship of someone elected by the old board.

[hmtcastle]

Makes no sense that the new board has to live under the chairmanship of someone elected by the old board.

They're elected by the current board (that is, the current board at the time of the election).

But they're your rules. If they don't make sense, try to change them.

[Guest dan]

Makes no sense that the new board has to live under the chairmanship of someone elected by the old board.

First of all, it must have made sense to the folks in YOUR organization that decided on these rules.

Second, we all, in varing degrees, have to live with decisions made in the past by others. This is true from the President of the United States down to all sorts of other organizations, entities of government and provate companies.

Finally, if you don;t like the rule, then initiate the process to change it.

[hmtcastle]

First of all, it must have made sense to the folks in YOUR organization that decided on these rules.

That's a leap of faith I'm not prepared to take. I'm more inclined to think that the bylaws are not being properly obeyed. With the current scenario, it's possible for the board to elect officers in December who won't be sitting on the board in January. Not that it would be the first bylaws to put the cart before the horse.

[Guest dan]

That's a leap of faith I'm not prepared to take. I'm more inclined to think that the bylaws are not being properly obeyed. With the current scenario, it's possible for the board to elect officers in December who won't be sitting on the board in January. Not that it would be the first bylaws to put the cart before the horse.

Yes, that is very possible. Perhaps the rules/bylaws call for the election to take place in January after the newly elected board members assume the office. However, over time, perhaps someone started to jump the gun and do it early.

[Guest Ray Harris]

If a meeting failed to have a quorum, do the minutes of such meeting get approved as minutes or just notes at the next meeting (that has a quorum)?

[Josh Martin]

If a meeting failed to have a quorum, do the minutes of such meeting get approved as minutes or just notes at the next meeting (that has a quorum)?

They're still minutes and should be approved as such, although they are likely to be very brief.

[Gary Novosielski]

Makes no sense that the new board has to live under the chairmanship of someone elected by the old board.

Nobody said your bylaws made sense. But the time to notice that they didn't was when you adopted them.