The hall's governing document says that a quorum will be a minimum of one half of the number of members present but at a meeting there is one short of this number:
- The chair should deem that it is ot possible to hold the meeting as it is not quorate (ie does not have the required number of people present)
- The chair should suggest that as the people present had taken the trouble to turn up that the meeting should go ahead anyway as nobody will ever notice and its not a major issue anyway
- The chair may allow the meeting to go ahead and to discuss issues but take no formal decisions, just nmake recommendations to the next meeting
Let's get option 2 out of the way first. This sort of slack practice can be all too common in committees that have been pretty much unchanged for years. Not just this example, but all sorts of poor management can creep in over time as people get complacent. Sadly, some of the biggest issues can arise as a result of this sort of situation and, if it goes on in your hall committee it should be stamped out immediately!
In many situations however there may be a 'text book' answer and a practical answer. Clearly, if the minimum number of people required are not present then it cannot be a valid meeting and option 1 may be seen as the correct answer. However, it may be that option 3 is a better route depending on what is on the agenda. It may be better to have a limited meeting rather than no meeting for another month or possibly longer. Option 3 is quite valid and, provided no decisions are taken that affect expenditure of money, would be quite legitimate and would enable so necessary business to still be transacted.
Bit of trick question perhaps as option 1 is the text book answer but option 3 is the practical solution to a difficult situation.