Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Quorum and Roll Call


J. J.

Recommended Posts

Since we have mentioned quorums:

Assembly A has a membership of 201 and a quorum of 101. The bylaws require a roll call vote for some types of motions, in the pending one, Motion #-1. The roll call is alphabetic.

The question on Motion #-1 is put. There are exactly 101 members present.

1. Member Aber is called on and votes yes.

2. On hearing Aber vote, Member Zundel realizes that nature is calling. He leaves.

3. Member Zundel returns, just as Member Zeglin votes no.

4. Member Zundel's name is called and he votes yes.

5. The chair announces the results, "There are 80 in the affirmative and 21 in the negative. The affirmative has it and the motion is adopted ... ."

Member Zeglin jumps to his feet and raised a point of order that there was not a quorum present when the bulk of the affirmative votes were cast and that the motion was lost. Is the point of order well taken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assembly A has a membership of 201 and a quorum of 101. The bylaws require a roll call vote for some types of motions, in the pending one, Motion #-1. The roll call is alphabetic.

[After the vote is complete] Member Zeglin jumps to his feet and raised a point of order that there was not a quorum present when the bulk of the affirmative votes were cast and that the motion was lost. Is the point of order well taken?

If I was presented with this situation in a meeting, I would rule the point not well taken. Interruptions of votes aren't allowed once a member has voted (RONR 10th ed., p. 408, l. 24-29), and the point of order can be raised after the vote is complete (p. 243, l. 33 through p. 244, l. 3), as was done in the example. There was a quorum when the question was put, and there was a quorum when the voting was complete. Furthermore, the announcement of the secretary and chairman both confirm that a quorum voted. The official record shows a quorum with 101 votes.

In addition, a member can vote if he is present when the vote is taken, even if he was not present when the question was put (p. 408, l. 31 through p. 409, l.1). The procedure for a roll call also allows the chair to ask for votes for those members who were not present when their names were first called (p. 407, l. 1-4).

I've rambled a bit here, but I think the basis of my ruling hinges on the fact that the minutes will reflect that enough votes were cast to show a quorum present during the roll call, and therefore the vote result stands. Point not well taken. I'm curious to see what others think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Member Zeglin jumps to his feet and raised a point of order that there was not a quorum present when the bulk of the affirmative votes were cast and that the motion was lost.

Not sure if you meant to actually include this (the underlined words above) as a specific part of the Zeglin's Point of Order, but I'd say this part is not correct. At best, the vote is null and void (p. 244 ll. 25-26; p. 336 ll. 25-27), and would need to be retaken. The inclusion of this wording could conceivably cause the Point Of Order to be not well taken, since Mr. Zeglin's declaration is in error.

The other factor is the "clear and convincing proof" (p. 338 l. 26) that would need to be presented to confirm a quorum was not present. In this scenario, since the only confirmable facts (the record of the roll call vote, and possibly the reading back of the secretary's minutes notes indicating that the president had not announced the absence of a quorum at the call to order, thereby suggesting one was present) suggest otherwise, the best manner perhaps of obtaining that "clear and convincing proof" would possibly be the questioning of the members as to their awareness that Mr. Zundel had left the room, and of course inquiring of Mr. Zundel himself. I don't believe this is appropriate, but that's just my gut feeling.

It is presumed that the chair knew that an exact quorum was present, having in some manner ascertained the member count before calling the meeting to order, and that if any one member were to leave, the quorum would be lost. It would be hoped that he was aware of Mr. Zundel's absence, having seen a member rise and walk out, which would be most likely be hard not to notice if he were paying attention.

Further, it seems that p. 244(d ) applies here, as it references to p. 255 l. 16, the requirement of the presence of a quorum. Thus the Point of Order would seem valid at first.

Additionally, since the vote was clearly in the affirmative, it might be viewed as dilatory to raise a Point Of Order thus requiring a second vote which most certainly would be in the affirmative again. But I still think there is some validity in it (the point) on the surface, so I would not likely raise the dilatory issue.

So, it hinges on the inclusion of the wording "and that the motion was lost" in the Point Of Order. That error, if one were to be picky picky as the chair, would cause the Point Of Order to be invalid, just as if the Point Of Order had been raised that the taking of a roll call vote was improper for M #-1, when in fact it was the proper voting method.

I'm inclined to rule the point not well taken, and leave it to an Appeal and let the assembly decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've rambled a bit here, but I think the basis of my ruling hinges on the fact that the minutes will reflect that enough votes were cast to show a quorum present during the roll call, and therefore the vote result stands. Point not well taken. I'm curious to see what others think.

I think Matt's welcomed "ramblings" have sufficiently covered the bases. I would add a reference to p. 407, l. 20-21. I would hinge my ruling on that, and I concur with Matt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if you meant to actually include this (the underlined words above) as a specific part of the Zeglin's Point of Order, but I'd say this part is not correct. At best, the vote is null and void (p. 244 ll. 25-26; p. 336 ll. 25-27), and would need to be retaken. The inclusion of this wording could conceivably cause the Point Of Order to be not well taken, since Mr. Zeglin's declaration is in error.

Okay, if that last phrase is struck, is the Point of Order well taken that the vote is null and void due to a lack of quorum?

The other factor is the "clear and convincing proof" (p. 338 l. 26) that would need to be presented to confirm a quorum was not present. In this scenario, since the only confirmable facts (the record of the roll call vote, and possibly the reading back of the secretary's minutes notes indicating that the president had not announced the absence of a quorum at the call to order, thereby suggesting one was present) suggest otherwise, the best manner perhaps of obtaining that "clear and convincing proof" would possibly be the questioning of the members as to their awareness that Mr. Zundel had left the room, and of course inquiring of Mr. Zundel himself. I don't believe this is appropriate, but that's just my gut feeling.

On this there would be. Mr. Zundel is honest and will say when he left and when he returned; the other members will support it and the chair did see it. Proof that Mr. Zundel left just as Mr. Aber voted and returned just in time to cast his vote will be there. The meeting is being video recorded as well, and the recording shows these events as described. There is, in this example, clear and convincing evidence as to Mr. Zundel's entering and leaving.

[i'm not trying to make this relying on the evidence. What happened did happen and all parties agree.]

Keep in mind that if you rule the point of order not well taken, you are saying that the vote would not have to be cast while a quorum is present, though there was a quorum when the question was put and when the result was announced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we have mentioned quorums:

Assembly A has a membership of 201 and a quorum of 101. The bylaws require a roll call vote for some types of motions, in the pending one, Motion #-1. The roll call is alphabetic.

The question on Motion #-1 is put. There are exactly 101 members present.

1. Member Aber is called on and votes yes.

2. On hearing Aber vote, Member Zundel realizes that nature is calling. He leaves.

3. Member Zundel returns, just as Member Zeglin votes no.

4. Member Zundel's name is called and he votes yes.

5. The chair announces the results, "There are 80 in the affirmative and 21 in the negative. The affirmative has it and the motion is adopted ... ."

Member Zeglin jumps to his feet and raised a point of order that there was not a quorum present when the bulk of the affirmative votes were cast and that the motion was lost. Is the point of order well taken?

I say the point of order is not well taken.

Since only members who are actually present can vote, and since the number of members present and voting cannot possibly exceed the number of members present, obviously a sufficient number of members were present. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would rule that the point is not well taken, based upon similar arguments as those made already, and supported by common sense. The purpose of the quorum requirement is to prevent a small unrepresentative subset of members from making decisions on behalf of the society.

Mr. Zundel was presumably present during the entire debate, so that a quorum was present right up to and including the putting of the question. Thereafter, the comings and goings of members during the process of a role-call vote cannot be reasonably considered to have an effect on the outcome.

I would rule similarly if the vote was to be taken by ballot, and I think the situation may be clearer. Assume all the same conditions. The chair puts the question and declares that members will have the customary ten minutes to deposit their ballot in the ballot box, during which time the assembly will stand at ease. All members present come forward and vote well within the time limit, taking about the same time as the roll-call vote mentioned above. But during the process, several members come and go from the room for various reasons. All members are back by the time the polls are closed and the result is announced.

If a quorum is required to be present in either this case or the earlier one, I think the question that deserves to be answered is: what did those who were absent during some part of the voting actually miss? Or, what did the assembly miss on account of their brief absence?

I believe I could answer those questions if they were absent during debate, but I can't come up with a good answer as to why they should be compelled to witness the mechanics of the voting process play out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say the point of order is not well taken.

Since only members who are actually present can vote, and since the number of members present and voting cannot possibly exceed the number of members present, obviously a sufficient number of members were present. :)

Keep in mind that there is proof beyond a "clear and convincing" standard that a quorum was not present between the time that Zundel left and when he returned.

I do think that the point of order is not well taken, because this still constitutes a legal meeting and the action of voting violates no absentee rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, if that last phrase is struck, is the Point of Order well taken that the vote is null and void due to a lack of quorum?

Is it understood that the presence of a quorum means presence in the actual meeting space?

For instance, if Mr. Zundel had in fact left the meeting (to go home, let's say) never to return, and stated so to the chair as he stepped through the exit doorway, the quorum would have been broken. But if he only goes to "the facilities", or steps out into the hallway to use the pay phone, or steps out side for a quick smoke, fully intent on returning to the meeting space to continue participating through to adjournment, has he broken the quorum? He is still "at the meeting" though not physically within the space with the membership at that point in time.

Now, if "the chair notices the absence of a quorum, it is his duty to declare the fact, at least before taking a vote or stating the question on a new motion -- which he can no longer do except in connection with the permissible proceedings related to the absence of a quorum, as explained above." (p. 338 ll. 11-16; emphasis added)

So, what does "before taking the vote" mean? Is it only up to the moment the first vote is recorded? Does the timing of that phrase including the entire vote-taking process up to the last vote being cast?

I think Gary's fourth paragraph is relevant.

I'm going to stay with not well taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it understood that the presence of a quorum means presence in the actual meeting space?

The quorum was there when the question was put and when Member Aber responded to the roll call. The quorum was not there when the members cast their votes, prior to Member Zundel's return; when he cast his vote a quorum was present. A quorum was present when the chair announced the results.

For instance, if Mr. Zundel had in fact left the meeting (to go home, let's say) never to return, and stated so to the chair as he stepped through the exit doorway, the quorum would have been broken. But if he only goes to "the facilities", or steps out into the hallway to use the pay phone, or steps out side for a quick smoke, fully intent on returning to the meeting space to continue participating through to adjournment, has he broken the quorum? He is still "at the meeting" though not physically within the space with the membership at that point in time.

I think he was not at the meeting, but I think, in the interval, it doesn't matter is there is a quorum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it understood that the presence of a quorum means presence in the actual meeting space?

Yes. The concept of quorum and of a member being present is tied to the rule that, unless the assembly's Bylaws permit otherwise, a deliberative assembly meets "in a single room or area." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 1, line 12)

But if he only goes to "the facilities", or steps out into the hallway to use the pay phone, or steps out side for a quick smoke, fully intent on returning to the meeting space to continue participating through to adjournment, has he broken the quorum? He is still "at the meeting" though not physically within the space with the membership at that point in time.

Yes, he has broken the quorum. A member cannot reasonably be considered to be "at the meeting" if he is unable to hear or participate in the meeting at that time.

Now, if "the chair notices the absence of a quorum, it is his duty to declare the fact, at least before taking a vote or stating the question on a new motion -- which he can no longer do except in connection with the permissible proceedings related to the absence of a quorum, as explained above." (p. 338 ll. 11-16; emphasis added)

So, what does "before taking the vote" mean? Is it only up to the moment the first vote is recorded? Does the timing of that phrase including the entire vote-taking process up to the last vote being cast?

Keep in mind that in most methods of taking the vote, the odds of losing a quorum mid-vote are rather unlikely, so I'm not sure I would read too much into the particular word choice of the sentence on pg. 338. Ballot and roll call votes are likely the only cases where this is common.

In any event, I think Mr. Schafer had this spot-on in the first reply, and I think Mr. Novosielski's example of a ballot vote is a useful analogy for understanding the situation. I concur with them (and the other responses) that the point should be ruled not well taken. Due to Mr. Zundel's impeccable timing, the motion is adopted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As best I can determine, no one (including J.J. himself) believes that the answer to J.J.'s question is yes, and I would be very surprised if anyone did (even Mr. Foulkes as he struggles through his irrepressible ruminations). So, either this is the end of it or J.J. is going to follow-up with something which I bet I don't even want to think about. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to have been settled that the point of order is not well taken.

Several points have been properly noted above: It is the responsibility of the chairman to note that a meeting has become inquorate. Interruption of a vote in progress is not permitted. The presence of a quorum in the meeting hall is a minute to minute issue. If a member notes that the quorum has been lost, he/she can raise a point of order to that effect. Also, the original post provides clear information that a sufficient number voted to constitute a quorum.

These points suggest that the opportunity to interrupt the proceedings to enforce the quorum requirements during a roll call vote are limited and that the assembly has the opportunity to demonstrate that a quorum was present during a roll call vote by the outcome of the roll call vote. On page 407, it is noted that "the chair must direct the secretary to enter the names of enough members who are present but not voting to reflect the attendance of a quorum during the vote."

Summary: The point of order is not well taken because the oportunity to raise a point of order regarding "no quorum" does not exist during the roll call vote and the outcome of the vote clearly establishes that a sufficient number voted to prove that a quorum was present.

This is not a totally satisfactory answer to the issue of quorum minute-to-minute but I think it works.

-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As best I can determine, no one (including J.J. himself) believes that the answer to J.J.'s question is yes, and I would be very surprised if anyone did (even Mr. Foulkes as he struggles through his irrepressible ruminations). So, either this is the end of it or J.J. is going to follow-up with something which I bet I don't even want to think about. :)

Actually, I asked this question (on another site) a number of years ago, and had many different answers.

I could make the counter argument that this violated the FPPL on p. 408 that this was not a "legal meeting," due to the absence of a quorum. While I would contend that the question must be put at a quorate meeting and the result announced at a quorate meeting, the actual casting of the vote need not be at a quorate meeting. The casting would have to, however, be cast by a member "actually present." Member Zundel could not have phoned it in, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could make the counter argument that this violated the FPPL on p. 408 that this was not a "legal meeting," due to the absence of a quorum.

I would contend that a legal meeting at which a quorum is not present does not cease to be legal, although it is severely restricted in the questions that may properly come before it.

Meetings properly called or duly scheduled for the conduct of business, whether quorate or inquorate, should be considered legal.

(Admittedly, I have been unable to find a clear definition of the term "legal" meeting in §8, although it is used elsewhere in the Work.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would contend that a legal meeting at which a quorum is not present does not cease to be legal, although it is severely restricted in the questions that may properly come before it.

Meetings properly called or duly scheduled for the conduct of business, whether quorate or inquorate, should be considered legal.

(Admittedly, I have been unable to find a clear definition of the term "legal" meeting in §8, although it is used elsewhere in the Work.)

J.J. said he could make the counter argument... Until he makes it, let's leave it alone. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would contend that a legal meeting at which a quorum is not present does not cease to be legal, although it is severely restricted in the questions that may properly come before it.

Meetings properly called or duly scheduled for the conduct of business, whether quorate or inquorate, should be considered legal.

(Admittedly, I have been unable to find a clear definition of the term "legal" meeting in §8, although it is used elsewhere in the Work.)

Well, the ballot analogy is interesting, but I might explore that later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Since we have mentioned quorums:

Assembly A has a membership of 201 and a quorum of 101. The bylaws require a roll call vote for some types of motions, in the pending one, Motion #-1. The roll call is alphabetic.

The question on Motion #-1 is put. There are exactly 101 members present.

1. Member Aber is called on and votes yes.

2. On hearing Aber vote, Member Zundel realizes that nature is calling. He leaves.

3. Member Zundel returns, just as Member Zeglin votes no.

4. Member Zundel's name is called and he votes yes.

5. The chair announces the results, "There are 80 in the affirmative and 21 in the negative. The affirmative has it and the motion is adopted ... ."

Member Zeglin jumps to his feet and raised a point of order that there was not a quorum present when the bulk of the affirmative votes were cast and that the motion was lost. Is the point of order well taken?

"... when the bulk of the affirmative votes were cast ..."

Yeow!

There is no rule which requires a quorum to be present during 100% of the TALLYING PROCESS.

• Once tellers start to DISTRIBUTE ballots ...

• Once tellers start to COLLECT ballots ...

• Once the chair begins, "All those in favor say aye ..."

... no quorum is required, by any rule in RONR.

You only need a quorum to transact business,

• like deciding the Previous Question.

• like announcing the RESULTS of the vote.

Voting needs no quorum.

• You are under NO OBLIGATION to be PRESENT when your buddy votes.

• You are under NO OBLIGATION to be PRESENT when the "other side" (not your side) is voting aye/no.

• You are ONLY under the obligation to be present when YOU vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... when the bulk of the affirmative votes were cast ..."

Yeow!

There is no rule which requires a quorum to be present during 100% of the TALLYING PROCESS.

• Once tellers start to DISTRIBUTE ballots ...

• Once tellers start to COLLECT ballots ...

• Once the chair begins, "All those in favor say aye ..."

... no quorum is required, by any rule in RONR.

You only need a quorum to transact business,

• like deciding the Previous Question.

• like announcing the RESULTS of the vote.

Voting needs no quorum.

• You are under NO OBLIGATION to be PRESENT when your buddy votes.

• You are under NO OBLIGATION to be PRESENT when the "other side" (not your side) is voting aye/no.

• You are ONLY under the obligation to be present when YOU vote.

Ah, this was a roll call vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...