[muglo] Re: Constitution

  • From: Gerhard Kuhn <gerhardk@xxxxxxx>
  • To: muglo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:20:01 -0500

I think that would always leave it open for debate what level of  
attendance actually constitutes a quorum at any moment, to me pick a  
reasonable number and have that be the quorum.  You would not want to  
make a million dollar decision and then have someone like me say that  
the meeting did not actually meet the criteria set in the constitution  
so to me a agreed upon number would always be preferable.  I think it  
should not be higher than 20 and not less than 12 but who am I to  
say.  In addition, if we want to be sticky, we could review annually  
what constitutes a quorum to better reflect actual membership  
participation.  Generally quorums are set so that members of a board  
or organization can not take advantage of a poorly attended meeting by  
passing something the majority would have rejected.


On 5-Mar-09, at 5:09 PM, Doug Bale wrote:

> You and Joan are right, Gerhard. My mistake. How's this: The minimum  
> number of members necessary to constitute a quorum at any given  
> meeting shall be a simple majority of those who have attended  
> meetings or participated online in one or more of the group's forums  
> within the previous six months. (We can haggle over the period, if  
> we accept the principle.)

MUGLO information at <http://www.freewebs.com/muglo>
Manage your account options at <http://www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi>

Other related posts: