Re: #03: Board meeting quorum issues

On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 12:05:03PM -0400, David Graham wrote:
> If 5 people - half - the board shows up, and because they have not met
> quorum, they need to have unanimous consent which is actually a higher
> number of in favour votes than under the quorum rules.

This works. It enables a "bypass" of the quorum rules in cases where
meeting quorum would not change the outcome.

> I also believe it's critical to have some kind of automatic removal
> procedure for frequently delinquent board members. If several board
> members have stopped attending and the board needs to approve their
> removal, that's a dead-end situation. What should instead happen is the
> automatic suspension of a board member for meeting, say, 2 consecutive
> meetings without notice. They can then appeal that decision at the
> following board meeting -- if they attend. But meanwhile the board has
> gotten smaller without them, quorum has been reduced, and the organisation
> continues to operate.

Usually a motion to remove a board member does not include that member
for the purposes of determining quorum.

> A possible remedy for "disappearing member" problems during an email
> meeting is have per-vote quorum. For a vote, at least n board members must
> agree/disagree/abstain for the vote to be binding. Based on my earlier
> comments, if 1-4 people vote, the vote isn't binding. If 5 or 6 vote,
> there has to be absolute concensus. If 7-10 people vote, it goes by simple
> majority.

This I very much support. So far I like all your ideas.

--
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