April 2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

correspondence. In it he makes the suggestion that, "a quorum shall consist of a majority of the duly appointed and serving members, provided that a quorum shall never be less than three (3) members. " I ask that you consider this language, in its current form, as a suitable replacement for the current definition of quorum appearing in the bylaws under ARTICLE 4 MEETINGS Section 3. Patrick: Ilike your wording, I agree. It makes perfect sense. lam in favor of this amendment. Riley: I also agree. Sassano: It seems to me that the current language poses potential unintended negative consequences on the public. I certainly see no negative effects to changing the language, only positive. Chase: With the sincerity of all of the members that we do have and that we would anticipate, Id think that 3 members would be sufficient because they could speak for the Board. Klusczinski: And that's worst case scenario too. Sassano: Quorum would then become four? Klusczinski: Well, worst case scenario if the quorum level can not be less than 3 members, that would mean that we couldn't drop below S members on the Board. Sassano: And right now there's how many members currently appointed? Klusczinski: Seven. Sassano: So at 7, the quorum is 4. Klusczinski: It could be 4. Right now it's 5... Patrick: I thought that it could be 3. I thought that you said not less than 3. Sassano: If we adopt this language, the current count, the quorum would be 4, we'd go from S to... Patrick: But if I died tomorrow, or someone should die or be unable to serve in that capacity then the quorum would go to 3. Sassano: Right. Hence, there can never be less than 6 members, or S, that's still the majority. Chase: But still with the people that we have I still think that they could give honest and sufficientjudgment on anything. I think that everyone is quite serious about what they do. Riley: I only have one question, and I shouldn't even question you, but my feeling was that "consists of the duly appointed and serving", I would think that it would say "sitting" members. Meteiver: "Sitting" is what we'd originally talked about, and with discussions particularly with Aladean, she felt that the language that we've proposed here is a little bit more concise. Sassano: "Serving" implies engaged. Meteiver: Mm -hmm. Sassano: It seems to me that you could lay that ground work if you ever had to. Not that you'd ever have to. Let's just say that we ever end up at a meeting with only 3 people or even 4, anyone coming before us could always request a tabling if they felt that they needed more members there. Meteiver: They certainly could. Sassano: So there's really no down side from that perspective, that somebody might think that 'hey I'm getting a raw deal here, but in fact that person is perfectly within their rights to say that I want to come back next month... and in truth, if there were only 3, they'd have to be back next month anyway. 2