First, out of curiosity, why drudge up the past since it will not truly affect the immediate future? Second, the legality of the meeting, has/had already been decided, the point is now moot, however was there not proof asked for to show that a quorum was or was not present and no proof of no quorum was present? Proof was court ordered to be there, the absence of one makes a Descartian(sp?) deliemma(sp), in that you can't disprove what is not there(ie. you can't disprove that God doesn't exist, so therefore He does).
Politics has always been an unsavory affair and it will always be so, but if you do/ don't participate you are part of the problem.