Majority of a quorum

[Guest Debbi Greenspane]

If we only have a quorum of the board and an item is up for vote, can we accept the majority of the quorum or do we need 100% of the quorum in order to have a majority of the whole board?

[Guest Jon]

The action of a majority of a quorom is a valid board action.

[jstackpo]

As is the action of only one voter, voting "Yes" say, if a quorum is present and the others decide to sit on their hands (or keep silent).

You don't need "a majority of the whole board" unless your bylaws require that explicitly.

[Guest Nancy N.]

I'm afraid I will have to disagree with what Guest_Jon_ said. As far as Robert's Rules is concerned, a majority vote is all it takes to adopt almost anything. A majority vote, loosely, means more "yes" votes than "no" votes. The quorum has nothing whatever to do with it. (We presume, of course, that a quorum is present -- because it's necessary to do business.)

Your own rules are what may muddy up the water. If you really need a vote of "majority of the whole board" for something, then yes, you need a vote of a majority of the whole board -- but again, that's regardless of what the quorum is.

Finally, you sometimes see (well, I do) a requirement, usually in a statute or legal documents, for a majority of a quorum. But if you don't actually see that requirement in writing, don't go there.

[Guest Nancy N.]

I'm afraid I will have to disagree with what Guest_Jon_ said. As far as Robert's Rules is concerned, a majority vote is all it takes to adopt almost anything. A majority vote, loosely, means more "yes" votes than "no" votes. The quorum has nothing whatever to do with it. (We presume, of course, that a quorum is present -- because it's necessary to do business.)

Your own rules are what may muddy up the water. If you really need a vote of "majority of the whole board" for something, then yes, you need a vote of a majority of the whole board -- but again, that's regardless of what the quorum is.

Finally, you sometimes see (well, I do) a requirement, usually in a statute or legal documents, for a majority of a quorum. But if you don't actually see that requirement in writing, don't go there.

[Guest Nancy N.]

(I really meant it. And so did Dr. Stackpole.)

[Guest Jon]

I'm afraid I will have to disagree with what Guest_Jon_ said. As far as Robert's Rules is concerned, a majority vote is all it takes to adopt almost anything. A majority vote, loosely, means more "yes" votes than "no" votes. The quorum has nothing whatever to do with it. (We presume, of course, that a quorum is present -- because it's necessary to do business.)

Nancy, it seems to me that you are disagreeing with something I didn't say. Surely you don't disagree with what I actually said -- "The action of a majority of a quorom is a valid board action." You are disagreeing with other things that you take to be implied by what I said, but I didn't actually say them, nor did I mean to imply them.

The question in the OP was whether, if a quorom of the board (apparently a bare quorom) is present, "can we accept the majority of the quorum or do we need 100% of the quorum in order to have a majority of the whole board?" The answer is that the action of a majority of a quorom is a valid board action -- i.e., the vote of a majority of the quorom can be accepted.

[Trina]

What the heck is '100% of the quorum'? Since the quorum, by definition, is a minimum required attendance, 100% of that is still the same minimum number.

[tctheatc]

Nancy, it seems to me that you are disagreeing with something I didn't say. Surely you don't disagree with what I actually said -- "The action of a majority of a quorom is a valid board action." You are disagreeing with other things that you take to be implied by what I said, but I didn't actually say them, nor did I mean to imply them.

I'm hardly Nancy and do not mean to speak for her at all. But I get her point, Jon. She's simply following up on what you did say. An action of the majority of the quorum will almost always suffice. But if the requirement is a majority of the board membership, a majority of something less than the membership will not suffice.

Personally I find the question's language too confusing to be sure what's being asked. Real life numbers and details would be helpful.

[g40]

Instead of using the description "majority of a quorum", I think it makes a lot more sense to say something like " a majority vote, with a quorum present".

[Guest Nancy N.]

Instead of using the description "majority of a quorum", I think it makes a lot more sense to say something like " a majority vote, with a quorum present".

But, g40 (boy, you look like someone else), sometimes the explicit, statutory, requirement is "a majority of the quorum." What you propose would indeed be simpler -- indeed, just basic -- but that's not what they have to deal with.

[Dan Honemann]

If we only have a quorum of the board and an item is up for vote, can we accept the majority of the quorum or do we need 100% of the quorum in order to have a majority of the whole board?

In order to have a majority of the whole board you need to have a majority of the whole board.

Any more questions?

[Guest Nancy N.]

Nancy, it seems to me that you are disagreeing with something I didn't say. Surely you don't disagree with what I actually said -- "The action of a majority of a quorom is a valid board action." You are disagreeing with other things that you take to be implied by what I said, but I didn't actually say them, nor did I mean to imply them.

No, Jon, I DO disagree with this: "The action of a majority of a quorum is a valid board action" -- because that is ONLY true when there are some rules governing, that differ from the RONR basic rules that a vote holds when more members vote yes than no.

(I will say that it annoys me when parliamentary questions depend on everyone's doing the same thing with 3rd-grade arithmetic, but that often happens. Most often it happens when the suppositions differ -- for example, most everybody can figure what half of any number is (given enough paper), and recognize that more than half means more than that. But the question, like here, is, what is the number we are to figure what is half of?)

Here is an example. Suppose that the board has ten members. Suppose that the bylaws define the quorum as six (not coincidentally, a majority of the membership of the board). A majority of the quorum, then, is four.

Now suppose a vote at a board meeting. Four votes -- which do comprise that "majority of the quorum" -- vote yes: and that would adopt the motion, according to the rules.

-- Even though the other six members vote no!

-- A vote of four in favor of the motion, but six against, will adopt the motion! Does this make sense?

[David A Foulkes]

If we only have a quorum of the board and an item is up for vote, can we accept the majority of the quorum or do we need 100% of the quorum in order to have a majority of the whole board?

If you mean that the motion you were voting on requires a majority of the whole board to adopt, your answer is here. If you mean something else, please come back and untie this Gordian knot of a question you have posed.

By they way, is RONR your parliamentary authority (as defined in the bylaws) or is it some other book of code??

[Guest Edgar]

Surely you don't disagree with what I actually said -- "The action of a majority of a quorom is a valid board action."

Well, if Nancy doesn't, I surely do (and not just because of the persistent misspelling).

Let's take a nine-member board with the default quorum. Five members are present and a motion is made (without previous notice) to rescind a previously adopted motion. The vote is 3-2 ("a majority of a quorum"). The motion fails.

[jstackpo]

Whatever "a majority of the quorum" may mean (I have seen it often but almost always in heavily "legal" documents), it will be up to the association to figure it out, following the precepts found on p. 588 ff. (I'm presuming the phrase is in the Bylaws, somewhere.)

We can't tell Debbie G. (the Original Poster) what it means, nor can she (or Nancy N.) on her own, only her association can.

[David A Foulkes]

A "majority vote of the quorum" is defined in an alternate PA, but I don't even think that's what Debbie G refers to, although we may never know. She may leave us here to argue amongst ourselves never to return, as is sometimes the case.

[Dan Honemann]

Whatever "a majority of the quorum" may mean (I have seen it often but almost always in heavily "legal" documents), it will be up to the association to figure it out, following the precepts found on p. 588 ff. (I'm presuming the phrase is in the Bylaws, somewhere.)

We can't tell Debbie G. (the Original Poster) what it means, nor can she (or Nancy N.) on her own, only her association can.

Debbie G. never asked what "a majority of the quorum" means, but that apparently won't stop people from trying to tell her anyway.

[Gary Novosielski]

The question in the OP was whether, if a quorom of the board (apparently a bare quorom) is present, "can we accept the majority of the quorum or do we need 100% of the quorum in order to have a majority of the whole board?" The answer is that the action of a majority of a quorom is a valid board action -- i.e., the vote of a majority of the quorom can be accepted.

More to the point is the fact that the phrase "majority of a quorum" is not contained in RONR, which is evidence enough that the concept is not a useful one.

The OP's question was essentially: what vote is required to pass a main motion. The answer, according to RONR is (with rare exceptions): a majority vote.

A majority of what? A majority of those present and voting, unless the bylaws say something different, which, all the speculation above notwithstanding, has not been suggested by the OP. So, a 1-0 vote, or any other situation where the Yes votes outnumber the No votes is enough to carry a motion.

The number required for a quorum (please note the spelling) doesn't enter into the calculation for a majority vote. They simply need to be present in the room, voting or not, for business to be conducted.

[Trina]

If we only have a quorum of the board and an item is up for vote, can we accept the majority of the quorum or do we need 100% of the quorum in order to have a majority of the whole board?

What the heck is '100% of the quorum'? Since the quorum, by definition, is a minimum required attendance, 100% of that is still the same minimum number.

If your quorum is defined as a majority of the board members (which was not stated in the original post), then, yes, to have a majority of the whole board you need a majority of the whole board (which is equal to 100% of that quorum number, but only because of the way quorum happens to be defined for this body).

However, that is not the default meaning of majority vote (as others have explained). If your rules specifically say that a majority of all board members must vote in favor in order to adopt a motion, then you must follow that rule. Quorum really has nothing to do with it.

[David A Foulkes]

Perhaps there should be a rule that the the 10th post (or maybe even the 5th) belongs to the OP, and until s/he returns to comply, the thread stops.