Assumed Quorum

[mshane]

The new president of our foundation insists on using the term, "Assumed Consent," to determine if there is a quorum for business. I cannot find any reference to this term in Roberts Rules of Order, but I saw that it is a term used in the US Congress. Can someone explain if this is a valid way to handle business--just assume there is a quorum unless someone objects, then count those present to see if the quorum exists (in our case, a majority of those present)?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

"Assumed Consent"

Can someone explain if this is a valid way to handle business?

No, there is no such term to be found in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th ed. 2000).

[Gary Novosielski]

No, there is no such term [as assumed consent] to be found in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th ed. 2000).

And I've never seen it used in Congress either. The only kind of "consent" is general or unanimous consent, which are synonymous terms.

And it cannot be properly applied to counting a quorum. A quorum is either present or not and, if not, requests for unanimous consent to make believe it is are not in order.

Besides, a single objection removes the presumption of consent, so any time he uses this term, you can use the term, "Objection!" And if he's conducting business without a quorum present, raise a Point of Order "that a quorum is not present".

But something in your question makes me wonder whether you're using the term quorum properly. How can your quorum be "a majority of those present"? It is always true that a majority of those present are present, even if only one person is present. Are you confusing the quorum with the number of votes require to pass a motion? The two are not the same.

[hmtcastle]

The new president of our foundation insists on using the term, "Assumed Consent," to determine if there is a quorum for business.

He should be disabused of this habit.

It's the chair's responsibility to ensure that a quorum is (always) present when business is being conducted and, except in large assemblies when the number is close, this should be fairly easy to do. It's certainly improper to conduct business in the obvious absence of a quorum just because no one has pointed this out.

[David A Foulkes]

The new president of our foundation insists on using the term, "Assumed Consent," to determine if there is a quorum for business. I cannot find any reference to this term in Roberts Rules of Order, but I saw that it is a term used in the US Congress. Can someone explain if this is a valid way to handle business--just assume there is a quorum unless someone objects, then count those present to see if the quorum exists (in our case, a majority of those present)?

Perhaps you could ask him where he gets this idea from, and why he uses it to apply to quorum existence. We'll assume your organization's bylaws adopt RONR (10th edition, we hope) as the parliamentary authority, so you might also ask him to show where in there it defines/explains it.

[Tim Wynn]

The new president of our foundation insists on using the term, "Assumed Consent,"

See RONR(10th ed.), p. 51-53 for Unanimous Consent, which is used to adopt a motion without a vote.

to determine if there is a quorum for business.

You lost me.

Can someone explain if this is a valid way to handle business

Yes... in the case of adopting a motion, it is valid and often desirable.

--just assume there is a quorum unless someone objects, then count those present to see if the quorum exists (in our case, a majority of those present)?

Okay, now I'm fairly certain you are confusing "quorum" with the vote requirement. The quorum should be defined in your bylaws, as a fixed number or a percentage of the membership. This number must be at a meeting for business to be transacted, but they need not vote.

I hope your voting requirement is not really defined as a majority of those present. This creates additional work for the assembly, since the chair must count those present, immediately after the affirmative vote is taken. Also, it denies the right to maintain a neutral position, since any abstention has the same effect as a negative vote, in such a situation. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 390, l. 13-24.

[tctheatc]

I frequently encounter situations where "a majority of those present" is described as the quorum, either verbally or in writing. It's the case in our church bylaws. I try and try to explain, as Tim notes above, that it needs to be a fixed number or percentage, but to no avail. No matter how patiently I describe that the quorum is the minimum number required to be present to transact business, they look at me like I have lobsters crawling outta my ears and say "yeah, 1/2 of those present." Oy. It's frustratingly common, apparently.

[Tim Wynn]

No matter how patiently I describe that the quorum is the minimum number required to be present to transact business, they look at me like I have lobsters crawling outta my ears...

Fear not; you're in like-minded company, now, where you can make such outlandish statements and be understood.

[Josh Martin]

Perhaps you could ask him where he gets this idea from, and why he uses it to apply to quorum existence.

Well, as the original poster suspects, I think the President gets this idea from the United States Congress, particularly the Senate (although I'm not familiar with the "assumed consent" term the President uses to describe this practice). As in so many other areas of parliamentary procedure, however, the United States Senate is a poor role model for the average deliberative assembly.