Abstention from Voting

[Jim7]

Hello,

Where does the tenth edition of Robert's Rules of Order discuss the right of an organization to prohibit abstention from voting in its Bylaws? In our Governing Documents, Bylaws 5.02b states, "At least 10% of the eligible votes must cast a ballot or proxy in order to have a valid election of members of the Board of Directors." The 10% is the quorum percentage. Therefore, by requiring a quorum of voting Members to be not only present but also voting, this Bylaw looks to me like a prohibition against abstention from voting.

Jim

[hmtcastle]

Where does the tenth edition of Robert's Rules of Order discuss the right of an organization to prohibit abstention from voting in its Bylaws?

Nowhere. An organization is free to put whatever it wants in its bylaws.

this Bylaw looks to me like a prohibition against abstention from voting.

It may look like that but it's not that.

Any individual member is still free to abstain from voting. The fact that a certain number of votes is required in no way compels an individual member to vote.

[Gary Novosielski]

Where does the tenth edition of Robert's Rules of Order discuss the right of an organization to prohibit abstention from voting in its Bylaws? In our Governing Documents, Bylaws 5.02b states, "At least 10% of the eligible votes must cast a ballot or proxy in order to have a valid election of members of the Board of Directors." The 10% is the quorum percentage. Therefore, by requiring a quorum of voting Members to be not only present but also voting, this Bylaw looks to me like a prohibition against abstention from voting.

In most societies a member cannot be compelled to attend. The quorum requirement is not a requirement to attend, it is a prohibition on the conduct of business if not enough members do attend.

Saying that a certain number of members must vote to have a valid election is not the same thing as saying that a certain number of members must vote. A member cannot be compelled to vote under any circumstances.

See RONR page 394, line 6 ff.

[tctheatc]

? In our Governing Documents, Bylaws 5.02b states, "At least 10% of the eligible votes must cast a ballot or proxy in order to have a valid election of members of the Board of Directors." The 10% is the quorum percentage. Therefore, by requiring a quorum of voting Members to be not only present but also voting, this Bylaw looks to me like a prohibition against abstention from voting.

Not at all. Suppose there are 50 members. I guess you need 5 for a quorum. That's Joe, Jim, John, Jerry, Jack. In walk mary, Maggie, Minnie, Mo, and Martha. Now you have 20% of your members. But with the guys only, the meeting started cuz there was a quorum (10%) Now comes the election, and strangely enough, all the J guys abstain, and the M gals vote. You have the 10% threshold for a valid vote (assuming it's 10% of the membership, if it's only 10% of those present it's only 1!) The J guys still have their right to not vote, to abstain, and you still have a valid election.

[Jim7]

Thank you, everyone.

Jim

[Rob Elsman]

Hello,

Where does the tenth edition of Robert's Rules of Order discuss the right of an organization to prohibit abstention from voting in its Bylaws? In our Governing Documents, Bylaws 5.02b states, "At least 10% of the eligible votes must cast a ballot or proxy in order to have a valid election of members of the Board of Directors." The 10% is the quorum percentage. Therefore, by requiring a quorum of voting Members to be not only present but also voting, this Bylaw looks to me like a prohibition against abstention from voting.

Jim

The 10% rule has nothing to do with the quorum requirement. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 334. It is, rather, a special rule of order in the nature of a Standard Descriptive Characteristic 7 of a particular class of main motions.

[Jim7]

The 10% rule has nothing to do with the quorum requirement. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 334. It is, rather, a special rule of order in the nature of a Standard Descriptive Characteristic 7 of a particular class of main motions.

The statement in Bylaws 5.02b that "at least 10% of the eligible voters must cast a ballot or proxy in order to have a valid election" looks like a quorum requirement to me.

The only difference between Bylaws 5.02b and page 334 is that Bylaws 5.02b requires the quorum percentage of voting Members to be present (able to vote) AND actually voting in order to have a legal transaction of business (election), whereas page 334 requires the quorum percentage of voting Members merely to be present (able to vote) in order to have a legal transaction of business (vote or election), and that Bylaws 5.02b allows the voting Members to vote in person (by ballot) or by proxy (by proxy) or by mail (by ballot), whereas pages 334 and 408 allow the voting Members to vote only in person.

As stated in Bylaws 4.07, each Member "shall be entitled to vote in person or by proxy at such meeting, or by written vote delivered to the [Association]."

On what page in the tenth edition is the "Standard Descriptive Characteristic 7" to which you refer discussed?

Jim

[David A Foulkes]

The statement in Bylaws 5.02b that "at least 10% of the eligible voters must cast a ballot or proxy in order to have a valid election" looks like a quorum requirement to me.

Since this is your rule, you'll need to figure out what it means and how it applies. The definitions of quorum and voting threshold in RONR are clear, but you've stepped outside the RONR domain and (virtually) nothing in RONR will help beyond pages 570-573.

On what page in the tenth edition is the "Standard Descriptive Characteristic 7" to which you refer discussed?

If you look at the motions as detailed in RONR (beginning on page 98 with the Main Motion, and all that follow), after a brief introductary section, there are eight Standard Descriptive Characteristics. The 7th is the voting threshold, and it is that to which the previous reference is noted.

[tctheatc]

The statement in Bylaws 5.02b that "at least 10% of the eligible voters must cast a ballot or proxy in order to have a valid election" looks like a quorum requirement to me.

That's a statement about an election. A quorum is the minimum number of (qualified) people who must be present at a meeting in order to conduct business. Business could include an election, but many other things as well. When I'd answered your question before I understood (maybe I was wrong) that you had a 10% requirement for an election, as well as a separate 10% quorum requirement.

The only difference between Bylaws 5.02b and page 334 is that Bylaws 5.02b requires the quorum percentage of voting Members to be present (able to vote) AND actually voting,

Big difference!

On what page in the tenth edition is the "Standard Descriptive Characteristic 7" to which you refer discussed?

See pp 76-78

[Jim7]

Since this is your rule, you'll need to figure out what it means and how it applies. The definitions of quorum and voting threshold in RONR are clear, but you've stepped outside the RONR domain and (virtually) nothing in RONR will help beyond pages 570-573.

If you look at the motions as detailed in RONR (beginning on page 98 with the Main Motion, and all that follow), after a brief introductary section, there are eight Standard Descriptive Characteristics. The 7th is the voting threshold, and it is that to which the previous reference is noted.

Thank you.

Jim

[Jim7]

That's a statement about an election. A quorum is the minimum number of (qualified) people who must be present at a meeting in order to conduct business. Business could include an election, but many other things as well. When I'd answered your question before I understood (maybe I was wrong) that you had a 10% requirement for an election, as well as a separate 10% quorum requirement.

The 10% is the quorum percentage of voting participation necessary for the election to be legal. The election threshold is a plurality of the votes that are cast (the candidates with the most votes win).

Big difference!

The Bylaws are allowed to make the quorum whatever the Members want it to be, aren't they? If the Members want the quorum to be the minimum required number of voting Members that must be present (able to vote) AND actually voting in order for a transaction of business (an election) to be legal (valid), then they can define the quorum that way in the Bylaws, can't they?

Retrospectively, if at least 10% of the total voting Members (persons who have the right to vote) have actually voted in the election, then the election is legal.

Prospectively, if at least 10% of the total voting Members are present (able to vote) in whatever manner they are entitled to vote (whether in person or by proxy or by mail), then it is assumed that all of them will actually vote in that manner, which does not allow for abstention, and thus the quorum becomes the minimum required number of voting Members who must be present (able to vote) AND actually voting in order for a transaction of business (such as an election) to be legal.

See pp 76-78.

Thanks.

Jim

[tctheatc]

The Bylaws are allowed to make the quorum whatever the Members want it to be, aren't they? If the Members want the quorum to be the minimum required number of voting Members that must be present (able to vote) AND actually voting in order for a transaction of business (an election) to be legal (valid), then they can define the quorum that way in the Bylaws, can't they?

In my opinion, no they cannot. Not IAW RONR, anyway. Because what you propose is changing the definition of quorum as defined in RONR. What the heck do you do in a meeting where there is no election, if your quorum requires people to vote? Every meeting without an election would be inquorate? Would it not?

You are free to SET the quorum at whatever you'd like, in the bylaws, and if RONR is your governing authority, you use that definition of quorum. You are redefining quorum to the point that it certainly is other than what RONR defines and I would add to the point that it is non-workable, if not non-sensical.

[Jim7]

In my opinion, no they cannot. Not IAW RONR, anyway. Because what you propose is changing the definition of quorum as defined in RONR. What the heck do you do in a meeting where there is no election, if your quorum requires people to vote? Every meeting without an election would be inquorate? Would it not?

You are free to SET the quorum at whatever you'd like, in the bylaws, and if RONR is your governing authority, you use that definition of quorum. You are redefining quorum to the point that it certainly is other than what RONR defines and I would add to the point that it is non-workable, if not non-sensical.

I don't see how it is either nonworkable or nonsensical to require at least a minimum number of voting Members to actually vote in a vote or election in order for the vote or election to be legal as opposed to requiring at least that number merely to be able to vote (to be present) in that vote or election in order for that vote or election to be legal.

The purpose of the quorum requirement, as stated on page 20 in the tenth edition, is to prevent an unduly small number of persons from taking action in the name of entire membership. That purpose is accomplished regardless of whether the quorum refers to the number present (but not necessarily actually voting) or whether it refers to the number actually voting.

If making the quorum number the number actually voting violated the stated purpose of the quorum requirement, then I would agree that it would be nonsensical. But that is not what it does. It simply requires the quorum to follow through and actually vote.

If anything, it achieves the stated purpose of the quorum requirement more concretely than the other does, because it does not allow a passing vote by only a few Members, whereas the other allows a passing vote by only a few Members.

Jim

[David A Foulkes]

Jim - the first action taken at any meeting is the chair calling it to order. There may be some introductory ceremonies, leading up to the first order of business, the reading and approval of minutes from the previous meeting. In that brief moment between "The meeting will come to order" and "The secretary will read the minutes of the last meeting" no business is brought before the assembly. No motions made, no voting.

Do you have a quorum?

[Jim7]

Jim - the first action taken at any meeting is the chair calling it to order. There may be some introductory ceremonies, leading up to the first order of business, the reading and approval of minutes from the previous meeting. In that brief moment between "The meeting will come to order" and "The secretary will read the minutes of the last meeting" no business is brought before the assembly. No motions made, no voting.

Do you have a quorum?

The language in Bylaws 5.02b in the Governing Documents of my Association states, "At least 10% of the eligible voters must cast a ballot or proxy in order to have a valid election of members of the Board or Directors."

If a quorum has voted in an election, then the quorum has been present (able to vote) for the election at the Members meeting.

The reason that a quorum of voting Members must be present (able to vote) at a Members meeting at the beginning of the Members meeting is the anticipation of a vote. In fact, the purpose of the meeting is to make decisions by voting.

As stated on page 334, it is the transaction of business (the vote or election) at the meeting, not the meeting itself, that requires the presence (the ability to vote) of a quorum of voting Members in order to be legal.

As stated on page 336, it is the transaction of business (the vote or election) at the meeting, not the meeting itself, that is nullified by the absence of a quorum of voting Members.

As stated on page 338, it is the vote at the meeting, not the debate at the meeting or the meeting itself, that is prevented by the absence of a quorum of voting Members.

Therefore, at the beginning of the Members meeting, if there are not enough voting Members able to vote (present) in a vote or election in order for the vote or election to be legal, then there is no point in proceeding with the meeting, since the goal of the meeting (voting) cannot legally be accomplished.

Consequently, if (as stated in Bylaws 5.02b in the Governing Documents of my Association) a quorum is the number of voting Members that must BOTH (1) be able to vote (be present) in a vote or election AND (2) actually vote in the vote or election in order for the vote or election to be legal, then, yes, a quorum must BOTH (1) be present (be able to vote) for a vote or election at the beginning of the Members meeting AND (2) actually vote in the vote or election at the time that the vote is taken.

So apparently the quorum requirement stated in Bylaws 5.02b does not allow abstention from voting, because it presumes that a quorum of voting Members that is present (able to vote) at the beginning of the Members meeting will not only be present (able to vote) when a vote is taken but will also actually vote.

If at least a quorum of voting Members has actually voted in a vote or election, then that quorum of voting Members has been present (has been able to vote) for that vote or election in whatever manner it has voted. That is an irrefutable fact.

Jim

[David A Foulkes]

Jim (this is not the same as before, so please read) - the first action taken at any meeting is the chair calling it to order. There may be some introductory ceremonies, leading up to the first order of business, the reading and approval of minutes from the previous meeting. In that brief moment between "The meeting will come to order" and "The secretary will read the minutes of the last meeting" no business is brought before the assembly. No motions made, no voting.

Oh, and.... there are no elections on the agenda. (After all, 5.02b only deals with elections, not general motions)

Do you have a quorum? It's a simple question, with a yes or no answer. And it's an answer that needs to be determined before you go any further in the meeting.

And I think it's fair to say that if you are going to disregard what is said in RONR about quorums and voting thresholds and the differences thereof, and dispute everything that all other respondents here offer in reply, then this forum is of no use to you. I mean this respectfully, Jim. I do. But frankly, a three-legged chair is not a stool. You can call it that if you like, but what you have is a chair that's broken.

[Gary Novosielski]

The Bylaws are allowed to make the quorum whatever the Members want it to be, aren't they? If the Members want the quorum to be the minimum required number of voting Members that must be present (able to vote) AND actually voting in order for a transaction of business (an election) to be legal (valid), then they can define the quorum that way in the Bylaws, can't they?

Be careful what you wish for.

The presence of a quorum must be established before any business is conducted. It is not possible for anyone to vote on anything before a quorum is achieved. So, although you could certainly include language in your bylaws, that only those who vote will count toward a quorum, the inevitable result would be that it would be impossible ever again to achieve a quorum.

[Jim7]

Jim (this is not the same as before, so please read) - the first action taken at any meeting is the chair calling it to order. There may be some introductory ceremonies, leading up to the first order of business, the reading and approval of minutes from the previous meeting. In that brief moment between "The meeting will come to order" and "The secretary will read the minutes of the last meeting" no business is brought before the assembly. No motions made, no voting.

Oh, and.... there are no elections on the agenda. (After all, 5.02b only deals with elections, not general motions)

Do you have a quorum? It's a simple question, with a yes or no answer. And it's an answer that needs to be determined before you go any further in the meeting.

According to pages 336-337, "Before the presiding officer calls a meeting to order, it is his duty to determine, although he need nt announce, that a quorum is present."

I don't know whether or not a quorum is present in your example, but it is supposed to be present before the meeting is called to order, according to pages 336-337.

And I think it's fair to say that if you are going to disregard what is said in RONR about quorums and voting thresholds and the differences thereof, and dispute everything that all other respondents here offer in reply, then this forum is of no use to you. I mean this respectfully, Jim. I do. But frankly, a three-legged chair is not a stool. You can call it that if you like, but what you have is a chair that's broken.

I recognize the knowledge that everyone here has regarding what the tenth edition of Robert's Rule of Order literally states. That's why I came to this forum in the first place. I'm not disrepecting that knowledge.

I thought that the thread was over when I said "thank you" and "thanks."

Then it was suggested that perhaps Bylaws 5.02b was so different from page 334 that it was nonworkable or even nonsensical. So I replied, explaining why I disagreed.

I wasn't disagreeing with anyone's knowledge of the tenth edition. I was disagreeing with the assessment that Bylaws 5.02b is so different from page 334 that there is no logical correlation between Bylaws 5.02b and page 334 at all.

But I do recognize that Bylaws 5.02b differs from page 334.

My initial question at the beginning of the thread was, "Where does the tenth edition of Robert's Rules of Order discuss the right of an organization to prohibit abstention from voting in its Bylaws?"

The context of that question was Bylaws 5.02b, regarding which I said, "By requiring a quorum of voting Members to be not only present but also voting, this Bylaw looks to me like a prohibition against abstention from voting."

The first answer to my question said that "nowhere" does the tenth edition discuss the right to prohibit abstention from voting in his Bylaws, but that "an organization is free to put whatever it wants in its bylaws."

That answered my initial question.

Everything after that in this thread evolved.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I don't want to offend anyone here. You've all been very helpful. Thank you.

Back to your question. The answer is yes, a quorum of voting Members must be present at the beginning of the meeting in order for the meeting to proceed.

Jim

[tctheatc]

The language in Bylaws 5.02b in the Governing Documents of my Association states, "At least 10% of the eligible voters must cast a ballot or proxy in order to have a valid election of members of the Board or Directors."

Then it was suggested that perhaps Bylaws 5.02b was so different from page 334 that it was nonworkable or even nonsensical. So I replied, explaining why I disagreed.

I was the one who used "non-sensical", but here's what I said:

You are redefining quorum to the point that it certainly is other than what RONR defines and I would add to the point that it is non-workable, if not non-sensical.

I did NOT say your bylaw 502b was non-sensical. That bylaw governs elections, not quorums, and Rob pointed out earlier what its nature was. However, you seem determined to extrapolate its meaning into the subject of quorum, where it does not seem to belong. A few of us have pointed that out. Folks far smarter than I on this stuff, too. I think your determination to make 502b (which is about elections) cover quorums is what defies common sense, and will ultimately lead to an unworkable situation, as pointed out above.

You might find the quote features helpful in accurately representing what was said.

I certainly took no offense, no apology needed. But let's be clear on what was called non-sensical, FWIW.

quorum does not equal voting; I really can't add anymore.

[Josh Martin]

I did NOT say your bylaw 502b was non-sensical. That bylaw governs elections, not quorums, and Rob pointed out earlier what its nature was. However, you seem determined to extrapolate its meaning into the subject of quorum, where it does not seem to belong. A few of us have pointed that out. Folks far smarter than I on this stuff, too. I think your determination to make 502b (which is about elections) cover quorums is what defies common sense, and will ultimately lead to an unworkable situation, as pointed out above.

I agree with our resident ATC. There is nothing wrong with an assembly requiring that a certain number of members must vote in order for a vote to be valid. I've seen this requirement in many organizations, particularly when absentee voting is used (after all, the number of members present doesn't have any meaningful application in a mail vote). For the sake of clarity, however, it's best to just consider this requirement to be separate from a quorum. A quorum is defined as the number of members who must be present for business to be conducted. There's no need to reinvent the definition of that word. Just have your "vote minimum" rule in addition to it (or instead of it, for votes in which no one is present).

[Jim7]

I did NOT say your bylaw 502b was non-sensical. That bylaw governs elections, not quorums, and Rob pointed out earlier what its nature was. However, you seem determined to extrapolate its meaning into the subject of quorum, where it does not seem to belong. A few of us have pointed that out. Folks far smarter than I on this stuff, too. I think your determination to make 502b (which is about elections) cover quorums is what defies common sense, and will ultimately lead to an unworkable situation, as pointed out above. ... quorum does not equal voting; I really can't add anymore.

The 10% is not a voting threshold, but a quorum threshold. The voting threshold is a plurality of the votes, the candidates receiving the most votes winning the election.

The Membership is 870. 10% (a quorum) of that is 87 Members. If there are two Director positions open, then each of the voting Members has two election votes to cast. If there are 6 candidates running for those two Director positions, and if only a quorum (87) of the voting Members is present (able to vote) and actually voting, then there are 174 election votes (87 Members times 2 elections votes) to be case for those 6 candidates.

If candidate A receives 42 votes, and candiate B receives 37 votes and candiate C receives 32 votes and candidate D receives 28 votes and canidate E receives 23 votes and candidate F receives 12 votes, then candidates A and B win with 24% and 21% of the votes cast respectively, which is 2.4% and 2.1% of the total Membership votes respectively.

The voting threshold is neither a majority of the votes nor 10% of the votes, but a plurality of the votes. However, at least 10% of the total Membership (870 Members), or 87 Members, must participate in the election in order for the transaction of business (the election) to be legal (valid). That is a quorum requirement for the election.

However, the quorum requirement for an election of Directors in Bylaws 5.02b differs from the description of a quorum on page 334 in the tenth edition in two ways: (1) Bylaws 5.02b focuses specifically on election voting, in constrast to page 334 focusing on all voting (votes and elections). (2) Bylaws 5.02b makes the quroum the number that is both present (able to vote) and actually voting, whereas page 334 makes the quorum the number that is present (able to vote), which may or may not actually vote.

Just as the tenth edition itself does not allow absentee voting, but a Bylaw can allow absentee voting, likewise the tenth edition makes a quorum the number that is present, whereas a Bylaw can make a quorum the number that is both present and actually voting, as Bylaws 5.02b does.

Both the quorum described in Bylaws 5.02b (the minimum required number present and actually voting) and the quorum described on page 334 (the minimum required number present) fulfill the stated purpose of the quorum requirement on page 20, which is to prevent an unduly small number of persons from acting (by voting) in the name of the entire Membership.

An election of Directors requires a quorum of voting Members in order to be legal, and Bylaws 5.02b describes that quorum requirement. The quorum is 10% of the Membership. Bylaws 5.02b says, "At least 10% of the eligible voters." The "eligible voters" are voting Members (persons who have the right to vote). Unless some Members have temporarily lost their voting rights for some reason, that is 870 voting Members (eligible voters). The 10% is the quorum percentage. 10% of 870 Members is 87 Members, which is the quorum number of voting Members.

Thus, Bylaws 5.02b is in fact a quorum requirement for an election of Directors.

Jim

[Gary Novosielski]

Frankly, Scarlet....

[Rob Elsman]

Frankly, Scarlet....

Ah, c'mon, Gary. Share his pain. He's having to deal with a bylaw that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For one thing, there is no such thing as an "eligible vote". Votes are not elect-able or choose-able; people are. And it's all downhill from there. We are reminded, though, how often it is that organizations that insist on writing their own rules of order get it all messed up.

[Jim7]

I agree with our resident ATC. There is nothing wrong with an assembly requiring that a certain number of members must vote in order for a vote to be valid. I've seen this requirement in many organizations, particularly when absentee voting is used (after all, the number of members present doesn't have any meaningful application in a mail vote). For the sake of clarity, however, it's best to just consider this requirement to be separate from a quorum. A quorum is defined as the number of members who must be present for business to be conducted. There's no need to reinvent the definition of that word. Just have your "vote minimum" rule in addition to it (or instead of it, for votes in which no one is present).

Since when does an election (a transaction of business) or any other vote (a transaction of business) not require a quorum in order to be legal?

The only reason that the word "present" is used on page 334 is that it is stated on page 408 that a voting Member must be "actually present" in order to have "the right to vote." It is because Robert's Rules requires a voting Member to be present in person (actually present) in order to have the right to vote (to be able to vote) that a quorum is defined on page 334 to be the number of voting Members (persons who have the right to vote in a vote or election) who must be present (able to vote in the vote or election / a voting Member must be actually present in person in order to be able to vote in a vote or election in Robert's Rules of Order) in order for a transaction of business (a vote or election) to be legal.

If the right to vote is not limited to being actually present (present in person), then the being able to vote (being present) is not limited to being actually present (present in person).

If the Members are entitled to vote in person or by proxy or by mail, then the definition of "present" (the ability to vote / the right to vote) on page 334 is not limited to being actually present (being present in person), but it also includes being present (being able to vote) by proxy and being present (being able to vote) by mail.

It's the annual Members meeting. The only transaction of business on the agenda is an election of Directors. There are 870 Members. A mere quorum (87 Members) is present (able to vote) either in person or by proxy or by mail before the meeting is called to order. The presiding officer sees 5 Members who are present (able to vote) in person, and he sees 5 proxy holders in possession of proxies that enable their respective 5 Members to be present (able to vote) by proxy, and he sees 77 mailed ballots that enable their respective 77 Members to be present (able to vote) by mail, and determines that a quorum (87) of voting Members is present (able to vote) for the election either in person or by proxy or by mail, and he calls the Members meeting to order and proceeds to conduct the election.

Is a quorum (87) of voting Members present (able to vote) for the election? Yes. Therefore, the election can be legally conducted. Is a quorum (87) of voting Members present (able to vote) for any other transaction of business (any other vote) not stated in the written notice of the Members meeting? No. Only 10 voting Members are present either in person or by proxy to be able to vote in any other vote regarding any matter that might spontaneously arises from the floor. Therefore, no other vote can be legally conducted.

So the Members meeting itself is legal because any regular or properly called meeting is legal regardless of whether or not a quorum of voting Members is present (able to vote), as stated on page 336. And the election is legal because a quorum (87) of voting Members is present (able to vote) either in person or by proxy or by mail for the election. But no other vote can be legally conducted, because only 10 voting Members are present (able to vote) for any vote not stated in the written notice of the Members meeting.

So the Members legally have their Members meeting, and they legally have their election, and they do not have any other vote, which they never intended to have anyway, and the Members meeting is adjourned.

I know that Robert's Rules of Order does not allow that definition of being present, because it does not allow absentee voting. However, if it did allow absentee voting, then it would allow that definition of being present, because a voting Member being present is all about the voting Member being able to vote in a vote or election (a transaction of business) in whatever manner he or she is entitled to vote. As page 408 states, being "actually present" (being present in person) is having "the right to vote" (the ability to vote) in a vote or election at the time that the vote is taken.

If a quorum number of voting Members votes in a vote or election, then that quorum number of voting Members was present (able to vote) for that vote or election in whatever manner those Members voted in that vote or election, and therefore that vote or election is legal. It is logically impossible to vote without first being able to vote (being present).

Jim

[Rob Elsman]

Since when does an election (a transaction of business) or any other vote (a transaction of business) not require a quorum in order to be legal?

Oh, honestly!