How long can start of meeting be delayed?

[paulmcclintock]

Suppose a governing document establishes a "persistent quorum" as such:

"A quorum is present throughout any meeting of the association if thirty-four percent of the members are present at the beginning of the meeting."

Assume that a quorum is not present at the scheduled start time (per notice of meeting), but it is likely that they will have a quorum with the arrival of some late-comers.

First, would you agree that if they do call the meeting to order at the scheduled time without a quorum, and recess till a quorum is obtained, that the "persistent" feature of the quorum rule no longer applies, since they didn't have a quorum "at the beginning of the meeting"? (If yes, then if they drop below the 34%, they lose their quorum.)

Second, if the first question is properly answered in the affirmative, then they may wish to simply delay calling the meeting to order until a quorum has arrived. But how long can it be delayed and still be valid?

Assuming RONR is silent on these matters (as I think it is), under RONR the assembly is to interpret their own rules. Rather than leave this discussion at that, please assume you are a member of this assembly and had to decide how you'd vote on a question of interpretation, and explain your personal view and rationale (hopefully based on some principles in RONR).

Thanks.

Paul McClintock

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Suppose a governing document establishes a "persistent quorum" as such:

"A quorum is present throughout any meeting of the association if thirty-four percent of the members are present at the beginning of the meeting."

Assume that a quorum is not present at the scheduled start time (per notice of meeting), but it is likely that they will have a quorum with the arrival of some late-comers.

First, would you agree that if they do call the meeting to order at the scheduled time without a quorum, and recess till a quorum is obtained, that the "persistent" feature of the quorum rule no longer applies, since they didn't have a quorum "at the beginning of the meeting"? (If yes, then if they drop below the 34%, they lose their quorum.)

That is one spin.

But it is just as easy at the other end of the spin.

Assume this scenario:

• A meeting is convened.

• A quorum count is then executed.

• The quorum is found lacking.

• A recess is called.

• Recess is over, and a quorum count is executed.

• The quorum rule is satisfied.

Q. Was there a quorum at "the beginning of the meeting?"

A. Yes.

The quorum may not have been present at the convening. The quorum may not have been present at the recess.

But the "beginning" is a loose concept.

A meeting does not leave its "beginning" until a meeting hits its "middle".

Q. What is the "middle of a meeting?"

A. The middle of a meeting must be amidst business.

Since there was no "business" yet, the meeting has not yet reached its middle. Since the meeting has not reached its middle, it must be in its beginning.

Therefore, if the quorum arrives after convening, but DURING THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, then the meeting has satisfied its highly-customized quorum rule.

Q.E.D.

Second, if the first question is properly answered in the affirmative, then they may wish to simply delay calling the meeting to order until a quorum has arrived. But how long can it be delayed and still be valid?

But the first question was not answered in the affirmative.

So your second question is moot.

Rather than leave this discussion at that, please assume you are a member of this assembly and had to decide how you'd vote on a question of interpretation, and explain your personal view and rationale (hopefully based on some principles in RONR).

I think I just did exactly that!

Oh! And I can argue your spin just as well, too!

[David A Foulkes]

RONR says that the presiding officer, when the time of the meeting has arrived, after determining a quorum is present, calls the meeting to order. (p. 24 ll. 12-14) The implication there is that a quorum exists at the convening (scheduled start time [beginning?]) of the meeting, prior to the meeting being called to order. In the absence of a quorum, the requirements to meet and convene have still been satisfied. Most definitions (online anyway) define convene as "to come together; to assemble (for an official or public purpose)", which certainly takes place before the meeting actually begins.

Can a meeting that has not been called to order (that is, has not "begun") handle motions (as the three possible at in inquorate meeting) which would typically require the presence of a quorum in order to vote? That is, can such main motions (as I believe they would be, assuming no other questions pending) be moved, debated and voted on in the absence of a quorum??? That does seem contrary to the basic premise of parliamentary rule.

So, when does a meeting begin? Mr. Goldsworthy suggests it might be "beginning" for some time, until the meeting is "amidst (amid, in the middle, surrounded by) business." I'm reminded of the journey of a thousand miles, wondering how many steps before you reach the near edge of the "middle" of that journey.

I suppose the answer, as is often given here, is that they are your customized rules, so you'll need to figure it out. But personally, with my humble and limited knowledge and experience, if I were presiding, I'd go with this: if the meeting is called for 7pm, then that is when it begins. No quorum, no persistence.

I'll entertain your Point of Order now.

Second, if the first question is properly answered in the affirmative,

BTW - if you already know the answer, why are you asking the question?

[STA]

Without splitting hairs [parliamentarians get an undeserved bad rep for that as it is] the meeting undeniably begins with the first item of business, whether it's approval of the minutes or a recess to seek a quorum. No quorum at that point means no quorum.

I agree the only alternative is to delay the call to order. We know you can't start early, but how late? When the numbers start decreasing rather than increasing, you're done.

Reminds me of "When does the 0800 briefing start? When the colonel gets here, lieutenant."

[David A Foulkes]

Second, if the first question is properly answered in the affirmative, then they may wish to simply delay calling the meeting to order until a quorum has arrived. But how long can it be delayed and still be valid?

Hmmm..... there may be hope here.

Q. How long can the start of a meeting be delayed and still be valid?

A: RONR 10th Ed. p. 338 ll. 1-4 says if a quorum is not present (at the scheduled time of the meeting) the Chair "waits until there is one (!)", and continues "or until, after a reasonable time, there appears to be no prospect that a quorum will assemble."

My take on this would be that, if during that "reasonable time", the attendance increases (perhaps at a "reasonable rate"?) to suggest that members are still arriving, however fashionably late, and that a quorum will be eventually reached, the (continued) delay is acceptable, and that the meeting has not yet begun.

On a side note: I suspect that a couple posts that were here previously have disappeared, I'll assume by the posters' deliberate actions. If not, there may be trouble in River City.

[Rev Ed]

In my humble opinion, if the Chairman believes that quorom does not exist (he/she could or better should do an informal headcount to make a judgement call), but expects more members to arrive shortly - which almost always happens at meetings of the general membership (at least in my experience) - then the Chairman should wait a few minutes before he/she feels taht quorom will be met. If there still make be concerns over quorom, the Chairman should then stop and make a formal count to determine quorom (although any member may question whether or not there is quorom.)

[hmtcastle]

how long can it be delayed and still be valid?

I think, as it does in many cases, RONR leaves it to the assembly to determine how much of a delay is reasonable.

[Josh Martin]

First, would you agree that if they do call the meeting to order at the scheduled time without a quorum, and recess till a quorum is obtained, that the "persistent" feature of the quorum rule no longer applies, since they didn't have a quorum "at the beginning of the meeting"? (If yes, then if they drop below the 34%, they lose their quorum.)

I agree that if a quorum was not present "at the beginning of the meeting," the rule does not apply and the rules of RONR are controlling. I'm not sure "beginning" means the exact second the meeting is called to order. I'm also not sure it's as ethereal as Mr. Goldsworthy suggests. I think STA's suggestion that it begins with the first item of business is the most supported by RONR, as the text makes several references to minutes being read at the beginning of the meeting.

But how long can it be delayed and still be valid?

I think that when members start to go home you've exceeded the "reasonable" period. How long that is probably varies depending on the type of assembly and the local amenities, and is more of a practical matter than a parliamentary one. You could probably stall for a lot longer in a multi-day national convention than in a regular meeting of a small local club. Likewise, if there's a bar nearby that should considerably increase the amount of time you can ask members to stay in the vicinity.

After members have begun to leave, however, I think you're getting into potential violations of rights of individual members and absentees if you call the meeting to order. At a certain point, members really should know whether the meeting is going to begin or not.

On a side note: I suspect that a couple posts that were here previously have disappeared, I'll assume by the posters' deliberate actions. If not, there may be trouble in River City.

Well, we are dancing on very thin ice at the moment.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Suppose a governing document establishes a "persistent quorum" as such:

"A quorum is present throughout any meeting of the association if thirty-four percent of the members are present at the beginning of the meeting."

...

First, would you agree that if they do call the meeting to order at the scheduled time without a quorum, and recess till a quorum is obtained, that the "persistent" feature of the quorum rule no longer applies, since they didn't have a quorum "at the beginning of the meeting"? (If yes, then if they drop below the 34%, they lose their quorum.)

Late thought.

One interpretation the membership may spin on its unique rule is, "Recesses notwithstanding, if we do obtain a quorum, then our unique rule applies."

Thus, "there is no beginning UNTIL a quorum arrives."

THAT is one possible spin.

And it is just as authentic as the 3 or 4 other spins.

You may compare your hypothetical rule with California's corporations code.

There, you will find that if you obtain a quorum, then, with limits, you can still transact business when the quorum walks.

Beware that the factor of TIME (e.g., "In The Beginning" whatever the "beginning" means) is NOT what the State of California considers crucial.

(Curiously, it is the number of votes cast. - Indeed, California's rule is quite anti-Robertian.)

[paulmcclintock]

Thanks, all, for your insights. It was helpful.

Paul McClintock

[David A Foulkes]

After members have begun to leave, however, I think you're getting into potential violations of rights of individual members and absentees if you call the meeting to order. At a certain point, members really should know whether the meeting is going to begin or not.

Perhaps the best approach is for the Chair to announce a waiting period of (for instance) 15 minutes, after which the inquorate meeting would be called to order, then adjourned (and perhaps after having Fixed the Time to Adjourn To). Then, those present would know to stay and not miss out on anything.

[hmtcastle]

Perhaps the best approach is for the Chair to announce a waiting period of (for instance) 15 minutes . . .

I still think it's up to the assembly, If they don't want to wait 15 minutes, they don't have to. As discussed, in some instances 15 minutes is no big deal. In others, it might be 10 minutes too long. The members who show up on time (i.e. the assembly) should get to decide how long to wait. It can't be up to the whim (?) of the chair.

[David A Foulkes]

I still think it's up to the assembly, If they don't want to wait 15 minutes, they don't have to. As discussed, in some instances 15 minutes is no big deal. In others, it might be 10 minutes too long. The members who show up on time (i.e. the assembly) should get to decide how long to wait. It can't be up to the whim (?) of the chair.

But can the members decide outside of a meeting that hasn't been called to order yet? Hmmm.....

Okay. Call the meeting to order, having prepared someone to move to Fix The Time To Adjourn To 15 minutes hence, with luck get a majority vote, Adjourn. In 15 minutes, a quorum being present, call the Adjourned Meeting to order and move along. Possible?

[Josh Martin]

But can the members decide outside of a meeting that hasn't been called to order yet? Hmmm.....

Not formally, but if the members really got sick of waiting, they could either simply leave, or have another member call the meeting to order.

Okay. Call the meeting to order, having prepared someone to move to Fix The Time To Adjourn To 15 minutes hence, with luck get a majority vote, Adjourn. In 15 minutes, a quorum being present, call the Adjourned Meeting to order and move along. Possible?

In a normal situation, that would be fine. Whether this would accomplish the desired goal in this case is unclear. It would be a matter of interpretation.