Ask a Parliamentary Question

Yes this is a big chicken and egg problem. You raise several points. First, where are you hearing that it is not advisable to have a quorum number less that 30%? Robert's says only the quorum should be set at a number that can be reasonably expected to attend under normal conditions. That might be 100 people or 10 people. Second, you need to make a herculean effort to get enough of a quorum to make some important bylaws changes - especially the one to allow electronic meetings. Most organizations that I have seen move to electronic meetings have no more quorum problems. If you need to mail and call and beg and cajole to be people to the meeting, then do that. If you absolutely can't get a quorum together, maybe you have something in your bylaws about voting by mail. If you can get 2/3 of your members to vote by mail, that might be the best you can do. If you can't do those, then go ahead and have your electronic meeting and get at least a majority of the members to attend. Then bring your bylaws amendments to a vote. It is important to follow the bylaws, but it is even more important to keep your organization alive in a way that has the support of the highest number of members possible. If you can never get a quorum, then you are on the path to extinction.

The bylaws should provide for the method of selecting committee standing committee members. The committee does not have the authority to do anything more that what is provided in the bylaws. The method of creating ad-hoc committees, as described in Robert's Rules, if by a motion from the governing body. Sometimes bylaws will provide for the president to appoint committees. By whatever means of appointment ad-hoc committee members, the committee does not have any authority to exceed the requirements or rules provided by the appointing authority.

You have a couple of questions here. First, you have stated that the bylaws do not address removal of an officer, and replacement of an officer so removed. So I can answer based on Robert's Rules 12th edition. Officers can be removed with on of two different grounds depending on the term of office. If the bylaws say the term of office is a certain number of years, or a certain month, or if the term is given as "x years AND until the successors are elected" then you can only remove the officer for cause, following a fair hearing (as laid out in Robert's Rules) and by a 2/3 vote. However if the term of office is given as "x years OR until the successors are elected" then you can elect a new officer any time without any cause or justification. Anyone can simply make a motion to open nominations for the office in question. Unless the bylaws have a method of filling a vacancy, you would simply proceed to a new election, by majority vote. Generally, whatever body elected the officer in the first place is also the one that can replace the officer. Regarding the resignation, this is technically a "motion to be excused from a duty" and it mast be accepted by a majority vote of the board. The president does not have the authority to "accept" the resignation. The person can write another letter withdrawing the request. Until the request is approved by the board the person is still in the position, so there is no need to "reinstate" them. Which is good because there is no provisions for "reinstatement" in Robert's Rules. This is a bit of a complicated issue and it is best if I review your bylaws and give you an specific answer. I will do that without fee if you email your bylaws to kirby@parliamentarian.com

The secretary, or any person in the absence of the secretary, would hold an election for a chair pro tem (temporary chair). The election can be done by voice vote. The person so elected has full authority to chair the meeting, but does not fill the organizational role of "president" or "chair". The person would be chair of the meeting only, which would expire at the end of the meeting. Example: Announce "the chair, vice chair, and past chair are all absent so it is in order that we elect a chair pro tem to chair the meeting. Nominations are now open for chair pro tem".

I can't think of the advantage to a board member of doing that - a member of the public is only a guest at a board meeting with no right to participate. So I'm not sure why a member of the board, with full rights of participation (make motions, debate, vote), would give up all those rights to become a mere guest at the meeting. Possibly the board member wanted to reduce the number of members present below the quorum requirement to prevent the board from acting. Foolish or not, I cannot think of any rule against doing it.