Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

15 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5708 (2026)

 Use of conference telephone or other electronic technology.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 5708.  Use of conference telephone or other electronic technology.

(a)  Incorporators, directors and members of an other body.--Except as otherwise provided in the bylaws, one or more persons may participate in a meeting of the incorporators, the board of directors or an other body of a nonprofit corporation by means of conference telephone or other electronic technology by means of which all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other. Participation in a meeting pursuant to this subsection shall constitute presence in person at the meeting.

(b)  Members.--Except as otherwise provided in the bylaws, the presence or participation by a member, including voting and taking other action, at a meeting of members by conference telephone or other electronic technology constitutes the presence of, or vote or action by, the member for the purposes of this subpart.

(c)  Exclusive use of electronic technology.--Unless the bylaws provide expressly that a meeting of members may not be held solely by means of electronic technology, a meeting of the members does not need to be held at a geographic location if the meeting is held by means of electronic technology in a fashion pursuant to which the members have a reasonable opportunity to participate in the meeting, read or hear the proceedings substantially concurrently with their occurrence, vote on matters submitted to the members and, subject to such guidelines and procedures as the board of directors may adopt, make appropriate motions and comment on the business of the meeting. Any guidelines or procedures adopted by the board or an other body must comply with section 5709(c) (relating to conduct of members meeting).

(Dec. 19, 1990, P.L.834, No.198, eff. imd.; July 9, 2013, P.L.476, No.67, eff. 60 days; Nov. 3, 2022, P.L.1791, No.122, eff. 60 days)

 

Cross References.  Section 5708 is referred to in sections 5704, 5758 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Koprowski v. Wistar Inst. of Anatomy & Biology, 819 F. Supp. 410 (E.D. Pa. 1992).
Koprowski v. Wistar Inst. of Anatomy & Biology, 819 F. Supp. 410 (E.D. Pa. 1992). · cites it 2× “Koprowski contends that there were not seven members who attended by phone and that those who did attend by phone were not on the phone during the requisite time frame or were not able to hear “each other” as required under Pennsylvania’s Nonprofit Corporation Law, 15…”
M4 Holdings, LLC, a New Jersey Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Lake Harmony Estates Prop. Owners' Ass'n, a Pennsylvania non-profit Corp. ~ Appeal of: M4 Holdings, LLC (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020). · cites it 3× “” Former 15 Pa.C.S. § 5708. Common pleas then 9 Common pleas maintained its findings from its Initial Decision that neither Ledgestone Properties nor Boulderview Properties had standing to challenge the Board’s denial of the building applications for 713 and 714 Skye Drive.”
S.P. Mark v. H.C. Chung, M. Qiawen (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025). “15 Pa.C.S. § 5708 (underline emphasis added).”
— 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5708(a) — 1 case
M4 Holdings, LLC, a New Jersey Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Lake Harmony Estates Prop. Owners' Ass'n, a Pennsylvania non-profit Corp. ~ Appeal of: M4 Holdings, LLC (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020). “” Former 15 Pa.C.S. § 5708. Common pleas then 9 Common pleas maintained its findings from its Initial Decision that neither Ledgestone Properties nor Boulderview Properties had standing to challenge the Board’s denial of the building applications for 713 and 714 Skye Drive.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.