quorum and unanimity

[Guest Jon Radwan]

This forum is great! Thanks for all the help so far, now I've got a new question...

If there was a quorum, but people leave prior to a vote, and no new quorum count is called for, and everyone votes the same way, is it still called a unanimous vote that represents the will of the whole body?

thanks!

[hmtcastle]

This forum is great! Thanks for all the help so far, now I've got a new question...

If there was a quorum, but people leave prior to a vote, and no new quorum count is called for, and everyone votes the same way, is it still called a unanimous vote that represents the will of the whole body?

A unanimous vote is one in which everyone who voted voted the same way (usually in the affirmative). But, since many people thinks it means that everyone present (not just everyone who voted) voted in the affirmative, it's better to avoid the term altogether.

In any case, it doesn't matter if a motion is adopted by the slimmest of margins or by a unanimous vote, it's adopted just the same and it's an official decision of the assembly. Whether it represents "the will of the whole body" is immaterial.

The fact that some members left is also immaterial (unless there's proof that a quorum was no longer present).

[Tim Wynn]

This forum is great! Thanks for all the help so far, now I've got a new question...

If there was a quorum, but people leave prior to a vote...

The question is whether or not enough persons left to cause the attendance to dip below the quorum requirement. You either have a quorum or you don't.

and everyone votes the same way, is it still called a unanimous vote that represents the will of the whole body?

It need not be called that, anyway. It either passes or it doesn't, and even if a motion passes unanimously, with raging support from every member, it can still be amended or rescinded, later.

[Guest Guest]

Ok thanks.

There was a quorum at the beginning but some left prior to the vote. There may still have been a quorum. Should I try to go from memory and recount the voters to determine quorumicity?

A formal motion for a quorum count was never made.

[Tim Wynn]

Ok thanks.

There was a quorum at the beginning but some left prior to the vote.

You need to have a quorum to transact any business... just starting with one isn't good enough (as you probably know).

There may still have been a quorum. Should I try to go from memory and recount the voters to determine quorumicity?

You can if you want, and I hope you recall a quorum from your memory, because you would need to provide some clear and convincing proof that there wasn't one to get anything overturned on the basis of a lack of quorum.

A formal motion for a quorum count was never made.

Formal motion nothing, if you see that there's no quorum in the future, raise a point of order to that effect (which you can do at any time, as long as you don't interrupt a member who is speaking), and if you suspect the chair isn't keeping an eye on it, keep a head count for yourself, and let him know when it drops too low.

See RONR(10th ed.), p. 337-338.

[Guest Jon Radwan]

You need to have a quorum to transact any business... just starting with one isn't good enough (as you probably know).

You can if you want, and I hope you recall a quorum from your memory, because you would need to provide some clear and convincing proof that there wasn't one to get anything overturned on the basis of a lack of quorum.

Formal motion nothing, if you see that there's no quorum in the future, raise a point of order to that effect (which you can do at any time, as long as you don't interrupt a member who is speaking), and if you suspect the chair isn't keeping an eye on it, keep a head count for yourself, and let him know when it drops too low.

See RONR(10th ed.), p. 337-338.

OK good, so if you are not in the room you really don't have much "clear and convincing proof" on whether there is or is not a quorum. Can you please point me to an article and section number rather than pages #s, I'm working online. thanks!

[hmtcastle]

Can you please point me to an article and section number rather than pages #s, I'm working online.

The current (10th) edition is not available online.

[Tim Wynn]

OK good, so if you are not in the room you really don't have much "clear and convincing proof" on whether there is or is not a quorum.

... unless you're having dinner with all the members of the organization.

Can you please point me to an article and section number rather than pages #s, I'm working online. thanks!

The 10th Edition (the current edition) isn't available online, but I can give you the info, anyway. It's Chapter XI, SS 40. I hope this helps more than I think it will.

[Josh Martin]

I'm working online.

Then you are most likely using the 4th edition, which is from 1915. It is considerably out of date.

If you desire an online source for this particular question, the Frequently Asked Questions on this site are taken directly from RONR In Brief, and this topic is covered in FAQ #3. In the long run, however, you will need to get a copy of The Right Book.

[hmtcastle]

the Frequently Asked Questions on this site are taken directly from RONR In Brief

Interesting. I did not know that.

But I see that Chapter 13 in RONR-IB is, indeed, "Frequently Asked Questions", and that the FAQs page says, "Questions 1 through 20 derive from Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief".

I had always assumed the FAQs predated the book.

Live and learn.