&Questions Answers

In this case, the Point of Order was raised at the time of the possible breach, but no breach actually occurred . The only error was that the president stated an incorrect number of members required for a quorum . There was no breach of the rules, because regardless of the exact number stated by the president, there was no quorum, and the president correctly declared that there was no quorum . If the president had stated that there was a quorum when there wasn’t, or that there was no quorum when there were enough members present, then a rule would have been broken . However, no rule was broken, and the president made the correct ruling on the Point of Order .

RONR (12th ed .) 40:3 notes that a quorum based on a percentage of the membership “has the disadvantage of requiring recomputation and may lead to confusion—for example, when the secretary, or other officer who is in a position to certify as to the current number of members for purposes of the percentage calculation, is absent . ” If the club prefers to keep the percentage calculation, the bylaws could be amended to require that the “current membership” be calculated as of a certain date, e .g ., January 31 of the current year, or a certain number of days prior to the meeting, e .g . 30 days, so that the required number wouldn’t have to be calculated on the spot at the meeting .

Our bylaws, amended in mid-2022, say that, “During the first quarter of each even-numbered year, elections shall be held to fill leadership roles as defined in the following sub-section.” would/ could this sentence be considered in the nature of a rule of order, and therefore be suspendable to allow for the election to be prior to that time? There is no proviso that would allow elections prior to 2024.

It’s unfortunate that no proviso was adopted with the bylaw amendment . When a bylaw amendment is adopted, unless there is a proviso or some other rule that delays its effect, that amendment becomes part of the bylaws immediately [RONR (12th ed .) 57:7] .