NLB Minutes

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #81364

    Dear All,

    July can be viewed at:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NLB-SPGB/message/4

    Cheers,

    Bill.

    #88767
    ALB
    Keymaster
    Quote:
    The EC have passed the following resolution: “Motion 8 – Browne and Wicks moved that “as there is no definition in the rule book of a Regional branch, the Conference resolution relating to quorums – “Conference resolves that, for regional branches, the quorum necessary for meetings be 3 for the first 15 branch members, with a further 1 for each further 10 members.”- be applied to all branches.” Branch quorum is therefore reduced to 4.

    How many members does North London have? 25 or over, I assume. We had a discussion on this at West London branch. As we have 24 members, we worked out that under this ruling our quorum had been reduced to 3 from 5. Which we think is ridiculous and will be telling the EC.The previous Branch Standing Orders (only adopted by the EC within the last year) laid down the following formula for calculating a quorum:

    Quote:
    In order for a properly constituted branch meeting to take place the members participating shall have to be 3 for the first 10 or part of ten and 1 for every part of ten

    On this formula, the quorum for a branch with 24 members is 5 (3 for the first ten, 1 for the second ten, and 1 for the remaining part of ten).The resolution carried by Conference amended this not only to replace “the first 10” by “the first 15”, but also to replace “and 1 for every part of ten” by  “and 1 for each further 10 members”. Which makes all the difference. This may well have been unintended, but it brings out the point that this resolution was badly drafted and was probably out of order (by drawing a distinction between branches not laid down in the Rulebook) and should never have been passed.It needs to be repealed (or at least amended to restore “1 for every part of ten”) at the earliest opportunity, i.e. Conference next year. 

    #88768

    Adam,cheers for pointing that out.  We’re 23 strong, so in the same boat as yourselves.  I missed that reading, have to say.  I agree, and reckon 3 for a quorum is inapproriate for a branch of that size.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.