One-Man Show
Wrinkles in non-profit law create the possibility of one-person board meetings.
October 31, 2006 at 07:00 PM
7 minute read
Can you legally have a meeting of the board of directors with only one member in attendance? Apparently, the answer is yes if he or she holds enough proxies to reach a quorum. The odd result, particularly in these days of close attention to non-profit governance, is that a single director can sit alone in a room and call it a duly constituted meeting of the full board.
No one agrees this is a good result. And I doubt it happens very often–if at all–particularly in larger, well-established non-profits. But this curious gap in the law highlights the odd interrelationship between the rules governing meeting quorums and proxies.
If an organization's articles or bylaws do not expressly state the minimum number of directors who must be present for a meeting, then the state non-profit incorporation statute will. For example, the District of Columbia sets the minimum quorum at one-third of the directors, which is the rule generally, even as most organizations set a higher requirement of a majority. The general rule also allows directors to attend by telephone or by video conference so long as “all persons participating in the meeting are able to hear one another” (D.C. law). So it's clear that a single director sitting alone in the organization's boardroom could hold a meeting if everybody else is on the phone with him or her. Other than the loss of in-person interactions such meetings entail, they don't raise any legal or governance concerns.
Even as statutes are pretty specific about quorum requirements, they fall silent about whether you can count a proxy toward attendance at a meeting. Yet, many organizations' bylaws permit such use, leading to the theoretical possibility of the single director meeting. This is odd because the old common law banned proxies for both for-profits and non-profits because they were seen as an unlawful delegation of a director's duty. But the pressures of a mobile and modern society won out, lest it become too difficult for organizations to conduct business, particularly when experience showed no real harm was done.
Another odd legal wrinkle is that there is clear case law on whether members, as contrasted with directors, can use a proxy to count toward the quorum of a meeting. The answer is yes, although there is the additional common law requirement that no such meeting is valid unless at least two members are physically present. Thus, a thousand member organization can have a legal meeting with only two members in the room as long as the duo holds enough proxies to reach a quorum. And, with less legal clarity, a board of 30 directors can have a properly constituted meeting with only one director in the room so long as he or she has a purse full of proxies.
One would hope that the law of proxies would fill the gap by at least being specific about how a proxy is given and, ideally, limited. Such rules would at least allow the absent director some control over how his or her proxy is used. No such luck. Many states require voting proxies be in writing, but they aren't specific about whether they must contain any limits on their use, such as for a 'nay' vote on a particular issue. That means many other states have no such rules, which necessarily means proxies can be oral. This can lead to much mischief and liability, as the ghost of Sarbanes-Oxley haunts the non-profit sector.
It just may be that as the forces behind non-profit governance reform become uppermost in the minds of directors, this so-far largely theoretical gap in the law will become less theoretical. Perhaps the reformers will move to eliminate even the theoretical possibility of a one-person board meeting.
——
Bruce Collins is the corporate vice president and general counsel of C-SPAN.
Can you legally have a meeting of the board of directors with only one member in attendance? Apparently, the answer is yes if he or she holds enough proxies to reach a quorum. The odd result, particularly in these days of close attention to non-profit governance, is that a single director can sit alone in a room and call it a duly constituted meeting of the full board.
No one agrees this is a good result. And I doubt it happens very often–if at all–particularly in larger, well-established non-profits. But this curious gap in the law highlights the odd interrelationship between the rules governing meeting quorums and proxies.
If an organization's articles or bylaws do not expressly state the minimum number of directors who must be present for a meeting, then the state non-profit incorporation statute will. For example, the District of Columbia sets the minimum quorum at one-third of the directors, which is the rule generally, even as most organizations set a higher requirement of a majority. The general rule also allows directors to attend by telephone or by video conference so long as “all persons participating in the meeting are able to hear one another” (D.C. law). So it's clear that a single director sitting alone in the organization's boardroom could hold a meeting if everybody else is on the phone with him or her. Other than the loss of in-person interactions such meetings entail, they don't raise any legal or governance concerns.
Even as statutes are pretty specific about quorum requirements, they fall silent about whether you can count a proxy toward attendance at a meeting. Yet, many organizations' bylaws permit such use, leading to the theoretical possibility of the single director meeting. This is odd because the old common law banned proxies for both for-profits and non-profits because they were seen as an unlawful delegation of a director's duty. But the pressures of a mobile and modern society won out, lest it become too difficult for organizations to conduct business, particularly when experience showed no real harm was done.
Another odd legal wrinkle is that there is clear case law on whether members, as contrasted with directors, can use a proxy to count toward the quorum of a meeting. The answer is yes, although there is the additional common law requirement that no such meeting is valid unless at least two members are physically present. Thus, a thousand member organization can have a legal meeting with only two members in the room as long as the duo holds enough proxies to reach a quorum. And, with less legal clarity, a board of 30 directors can have a properly constituted meeting with only one director in the room so long as he or she has a purse full of proxies.
One would hope that the law of proxies would fill the gap by at least being specific about how a proxy is given and, ideally, limited. Such rules would at least allow the absent director some control over how his or her proxy is used. No such luck. Many states require voting proxies be in writing, but they aren't specific about whether they must contain any limits on their use, such as for a 'nay' vote on a particular issue. That means many other states have no such rules, which necessarily means proxies can be oral. This can lead to much mischief and liability, as the ghost of Sarbanes-Oxley haunts the non-profit sector.
It just may be that as the forces behind non-profit governance reform become uppermost in the minds of directors, this so-far largely theoretical gap in the law will become less theoretical. Perhaps the reformers will move to eliminate even the theoretical possibility of a one-person board meeting.
——
Bruce Collins is the corporate vice president and general counsel of C-SPAN.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readPreparing for 2025: Anticipated Policy Changes Affecting U.S. Businesses Under the Trump Administration
Senate Panel Postpones Vote on Reconfirmation of Democrat Crenshaw to SEC
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250