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
<http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror-11.htm#64> 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 220.127.116.11.2 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.