> > "The quorum refers to the number present, not to the number voting." > > > Actually not just the number present but the roles of the individuals as > well. > For example a quorum may specify an number of office holders and specifically > which offices as well as the total number of members present to make the > meeting valid and authorised to make decisions on behalf of an organisation. > > > Duncan
Precisely. When I re drafted the Quant constitution about 1992 I altered the quorum so as to include a minimum of two officers present at a committee meeting. That clause should stand. Quanta originally paid a lawyer to draw up the constitution, it was a mess. Together with Phil Borman who was Chairman I put forward a set of amendments which filled in the gaps and was relevant to an international organisation of nearly 2,000 members. Late on, Phil introduced John Mason to the discussion, but his contributions were usually full of civil service speak and read like local government bi-laws. He did however present one of the amendments, though he did suggest that all the other amendments be held back to ensure that his amendment got passed. I heartily disagreed. All the resolutions were presented and all were passed. That constitution stood until John Mason became Chairman and he introduced the clause that is the cause of concern at present. He wanted to limit the time anyone could serve as an Officer and gave little thought as to the consequences. That really does need to be revised. The is a great danger here though of getting bogged down in trivia. I would leave the whole exercise to Geoff who has a clear understanding of what is required and hopefully, will not be pulled hither and thither by competing egos. John Taylor. _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
