This was the case for over ten years. Tenant members could turn up at the AGM and be proposed and seconded. They were also welcomed back if they had been unable to attend committee even if this was a period of over a year. The previous Chair said that this was to make sure that there was always enough committee members to meet the legal requirement at meetings. It seems odd to place emphasis on one rule of procedure while ignoring another that defines legal legitimacy.
I attended the last committee meeting and found there were two voting members present. This is a HUGE issue much more pressing than the procedural detail of how members are voted onto committee. If we had a dozen or more people all trying every month to attend committee then it would make sense to keep to the letter of these rules. However, implementing rules that limit committee member numbers while ignoring the rule that says two voting members does not constitute a quorate committee seems like a very worrying and selective reading of the rules.
I would like to know what the threshold for a meeting being quorate is, quorate being the minimum number that can make legally binding decisions on behalf of the co-op and how often PPHC meeting this threshold.