From: | Taral <taral(at)taral(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | spi-bylaws(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: #03: Board meeting quorum issues |
Date: | 2003-03-12 17:25:44 |
Message-ID: | 20030312172544.GA1158@taral.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
Thread: | |
Lists: | spi-bylaws |
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 03:40:49PM -0500, David Graham wrote:
> In my opinion, quorum should be removed in favour of sufficient-notice
> rules, so that the president or secretary can't call a meeting for three
> minutes from now to pass an unpopular motion.
I think both should be present. Quorum should be 2/3 of the board
members, but the quorum requirement is waived in the case of N days
notice. I believe N should be at least 30, if not 60. There needs to be
a way to object to notice, such that if more than 1/3 of the board
objects to the notice, it is invalidated.
--
Taral <taral(at)taral(dot)net>
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
"Most parents have better things to do with their time than take care of
their children." -- Me
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Taral | 2003-03-12 17:27:37 | Re: #02: Recall of Board Members |
Previous Message | John Goerzen | 2003-03-12 14:43:29 | Re: #01: Election of board members by SPI membership |