2018 Quorum Clarification

VOTE PROPOSAL ROUGH DRAFT

I propose a vote to clarify the convoluted, confusing and seldom regarded bits in the current bylaws that cover quorum for votes. It would simply require 1/3 of Full members to participate in a vote, for it to meet quorum. It aligns with actual behavior of the officers, board and membership and all votes from the past several years, that I've witnessed.

Sponsors

• Ray Doeksen

Background

There is a very convoluted bit in the bylaws intended to allow a vote to happen even if Full members stay away from voting ... essentially it removes a member from a count towards quorum if they are inactive and don't participate for a period of time. However, record-keeping, conduct of meetings and understanding of the process is so poor, that it has never been properly conducted. Any vote that would be attempted under the true bylaws-specified process could easily be challenged based on poor audits of membership and record-keeping. The de facto standard then, has been to interpret quorum in the most conservative way at 1/3 of full members. This is still difficult, since in every audit of full members, some are found to not be in good standing, or still be on the rolls despite being suspended or otherwise not a full member, and it isn't unthinkable that a full member who is paying, is somehow listed as not being so, or otherwise did not get a vote announcement or proxy email. This vote does not address the process of conducting a member audit, validating the full member rolls, or anything else; it leaves that where it was, a challenge that the officers, board and full membership should attend to.

Language

Still to be worked out exactly, but essentially to remove all extra language about quorum other than "1/3 of full members" as a qualifier for who is counted towards quorum. To bring sanity back to the process by acknowledging the de facto process we've been using for many years, and making that the true rule.

Future

Future bylaws changes, revisions or updates can be voted in with confidence that the true rules are being followed. There should be no concern that a vote would not meet quorum: the difficulty in meeting quorum has, in the past several years, not been a factor in passing any even mildly important vote. Further discussion of that point should be conducted at meetings, on Google Groups, etc. This is simple: it brings actual patterns of conduct in line with a rule, without any change required to our regular patterns of behavior or expectations.

Timeline

• First rough draft posted: 10/23/2018
• Vote template added:
• Language locked:
• Submitted to Secretary for scheduling:
• Vote scheduled for;
• Vote first conducted:
• Outcome of vote: