Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

quorum issue in SEC Rules Change Ballot

I am still unsure what process we are following on this. However, 
since I won't be able to attend the Sunday night rules meeting, I 
wanted to reiterate a point that I hope doesn't get lost.

The current proposal says:

>"A quorum of 50% of the Working Group voting membership is required 
>to be in attendance at Working Group interim meetings."

This seems to imply that a meeting without a quorum is out of order. 
This is dangerous, particularly because Roberts Rules of Order 
<> says this 
explicitly: "The only business that can be transacted in the absence 
of a quorum is to take measures to obtain a quorum, to fix the time 
to which to adjourn, and to adjourn, or to take a recess."

Our rules need to make it clear that, in spite of Roberts, our 
Working Groups are entitled to hold an interim meeting in the absence 
of a quorum.


P.S. Bob Love (regarding an earlier ballot) expressed the same 
concern on 30 September 1999:

>I have a concern with the wording in which states "A 
>quorum is required at other Working Group meetings or in between 
>Surely, a quorum is required to conduct certain business, but the 
>present wording could be mis-interpreted to indicate the meeting 
>itself is out of order if no quorum exists.
>I propose an editorial change of the sentence to capture the 
>following spirit: A quorum is required at other Working Group 
>meetings or in between meetings to conduct working group votes.