Quorum and Roll Call after Call the Question

[Guest OswegoWriter]

Hello,

I'm hoping to get some clarification on a matter that has occurred at our university:

the Senate has a mandated minimum quorum of twelve. During the passage of a bill, following hours of debate with Senators P. and Q. forming the opposition, the question was called. there were 12 Senators present at this point, and the motion to call the question was passed.

When Senator P. noticed the issue with quorum might potentially delay passage of the bill, he left the chamber, and his Senator Q. made a Point of Order regarding the issue of quorum. Was the Chair correct in ruling that Point of Order dilatory? Would it make a difference if the Chair had or had not started taking the roll call vote (even after announcing that the question had been successfully called, and that the Senate would begin a roll call vote on the main motion)?

I realise that this question is similar to one on this board, but one key difference is that the final vote was 10-1, indicating that there weren't votes cast to equal quorum. Does that make a difference? Being a bunch of students, we're not exactly well-versed in Roberts' Rules (though I used to live down the street from his Owego home).

Thanks.

[David A Foulkes]

Without addressing any of the other particulars, the other question (and I presume it was the Quorum and Roll Call in the Advanced Discussion forum to which you refer) resulted in a general consensus that as long as there was a quorum when the question was put, and enough votes were cast to suggest a quorum was present, that a Point of Order regarding the loss of quorum during the actual vote was not in order. This is the difference, and your results clearly indicate a quorum was not present (during voting). The conclusion could thus be drawn that a Point of Order would be in order in this case.

Stay tuned.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think the key point is whether the vote had actually begun. If the chair completed putting the question, quorum is no longer a concern, and Sen. P. could not abort the vote by leaving the room. A point of order probably would not be ruled dilatory, but merely not well-taken.

As regards the vote count, the total number of votes on any matter does not, as a rule, need to equal a quorum, so the vote count is not relevant in this case. Abstentions are always allowed and the the total votes cast, when less than a quorum, has no bearing on the question of whether a quorum was or was not present.

However, in the other case, if I recall correctly, the situation was reversed. Where the vote (if counted) is greater than or equal to a quorum, that would be sufficient to refute claims that a quorum was not present.

So, you can prove the presence but not the absence of a quorum by examining a counted vote.

Ultimately, the right way of determining if a quorum is present is to look, and count.

[hmtcastle]

So, you can prove the presence but not the absence of a quorum by examining a counted vote.

Though if enough members fail to respond to a roll-call vote so that the total is less than a quorum, RONR says (p. 453) to record enough additional names of those present to reflect that a quorum was present at the time of the vote.

[David A Foulkes]

Though if enough members fail to respond to a roll-call vote so that the total is less than a quorum, RONR says (p. 453) to record enough additional names of those present to reflect that a quorum was present at the time of the vote.

But at the time it would have been determined that there were not enough responses to satisfy a quorum (that is, after all the votes and "present"s were cast), can you add the name of a member that isn't there when the results are tabulated (even though he was there previously at some point)?

I thinking timing is critical, as Gary referenced, as to when did Senator P leave the room? If it was prior to voting commencing, or even the chair putting the question, I'd think there might be a quorum issue. If it was after either or both of those events, maybe not.

[hmtcastle]

. . . can you add the name of a member that isn't there . . .

Asked and answered?

[Gary Novosielski]

Though if enough members fail to respond to a roll-call vote so that the total is less than a quorum, RONR says (p. 453) to record enough additional names of those present to reflect that a quorum was present at the time of the vote.

Yes, it does, although that's a "should" regarding minutes, not a "must" regarding quorum. I've always found that advice a little odd, though, because there's really no need to prove there's a quorum at the time of any other type of vote, even counted votes that don't add up to a quorum. And the point is made elsewhere that someone who fails to answer has abstained just as effectively as someone who answers "Present", and vice versa.

Also, I think it's been sufficiently established that during a roll-call vote, that quorum can be "serial" rather than simultaneous.

I would find it much more reasonable to require that the names of all members present during a roll-call vote be recorded as Yea, Nay, or Present (whether answering or not). The main purpose of a roll-call vote is to provide accountability to a constituency, and that goal is best met if, as a constituent, I can distinguish between a particular representative's having abstained, or having been absent. I can't do that if the recording of abstentions stops as soon as a quorum can be shown. If my representative's name is Zinsmeister, I probably won't be able to tell.

[J. J.]

I would state that the quorum would have to be present when the result was announced. A point of order could be raised at that point.

[Gary Novosielski]

I would state that the quorum would have to be present when the result was announced. A point of order could be raised at that point.

I'd agree, but it makes me wonder. If the loss of a quorum should persist after the vote, requiring adjournment of the meeting without announcing the result, or any further business, does the motion come up under Unfinished Business at the next meeting, consisting only of the announcement of the results?

I'm sure it does, but it's a strange situation.

[J. J.]

I'd agree, but it makes me wonder. If the loss of a quorum should persist after the vote, requiring adjournment of the meeting without announcing the result, or any further business, does the motion come up under Unfinished Business at the next meeting, consisting only of the announcement of the results?

I'm sure it does, but it's a strange situation.

I think if there was clear and convincing evidence that there was not a quorum there when the vote began and when the result was announced the announcement would be subject to a point of order. If so, the question would be under consideration as per either p. 347 a or p. 345 a.

If the situation were such that the announcement could not be made, due to a lack of a quorum, the announcement only would be made.

It is the splitting of very grey hairs, indeed. It really, in my mind, comes down to if the assembly was quorate to do what it did, presuming that a quorum need not be present for some member to actually cast a vote (or speak in debate). Interestingly, those two acts are the acts of the individual member, not of the assembly.

[Josh Martin]

Was the Chair correct in ruling that Point of Order dilatory?

No.

Would it make a difference if the Chair had or had not started taking the roll call vote (even after announcing that the question had been successfully called, and that the Senate would begin a roll call vote on the main motion)?

Well, it would make a slight difference in that if voting had begun, the member would need to wait until the vote was completed to raise the Point of Order, but it should still be ruled well taken.

I realise that this question is similar to one on this board, but one key difference is that the final vote was 10-1, indicating that there weren't votes cast to equal quorum. Does that make a difference?

A member may raise a Point of Order at a future meeting that a quorum was not present and that the motion is null and void. This requires clear and convincing proof, but since the vote was taken by roll call, that's about as clear and convincing as it gets. The roll call shows only eleven members present at the time the vote was taken.

Abstentions are always allowed and the the total votes cast, when less than a quorum, has no bearing on the question of whether a quorum was or was not present.

However, in the other case, if I recall correctly, the situation was reversed. Where the vote (if counted) is greater than or equal to a quorum, that would be sufficient to refute claims that a quorum was not present.

So, you can prove the presence but not the absence of a quorum by examining a counted vote.

This is generally correct, but in the case of a roll call vote, members who respond "abstain" are recorded, and members who do not respond at all are recorded if needed to show the presence of a quorum. So a roll call vote which only shows eleven members present suggests that only eleven members were present.

[J. J.]

A member may raise a Point of Order at a future meeting that a quorum was not present and that the motion is null and void. This requires clear and convincing proof, but since the vote was taken by roll call, that's about as clear and convincing as it gets. The roll call shows only eleven members present at the time the vote was taken.

I would question if the vote was null and void. The fact that present member chose not to vote might not be included in the role call (though it should be). It simply, in itself, is not clear and convincing.

[Gary Novosielski]

This is generally correct, but in the case of a roll call vote, members who respond "abstain" are recorded, and members who do not respond at all are recorded if needed to show the presence of a quorum. So a roll call vote which only shows eleven members present suggests that only eleven members were present.

That is what "should" be done in recording of the minutes, but it is not mandatory, and it is not foolproof. It may "suggest" that only eleven members were present but it does not, in my view, rise to the level of "clear and convincing proof", especially in proving the negative.

If, as the description suggests, a quorum was present at the time voting began, and only then did Sen P. leave the room (with clearly dilatory motives, by the way), a point of order may not interrupt the vote.

I believe there are grounds for a point of order against the announcement of the results, but not against their validity. But I'm not adamant.

[hmtcastle]

But I'm not adamant.

That would be Stuart Goddard.

[Josh Martin]

If, as the description suggests, a quorum was present at the time voting began, and only then did Sen P. leave the room (with clearly dilatory motives, by the way), a point of order may not interrupt the vote.

As I understand the original post, Senator P. left the room after the Previous Question was ordered, but before the voting on the underlying question began, so it seems to me that a quorum was not present at any point during the vote or the announcement of the result. I will concede, however, that it will ultimately be up to the assembly to determine whether the minutes and the members' memories of the event constitute clear and convincing proof. I would note that the motives of Senator P. are irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether a quorum was present.

[Gary Novosielski]

That would be Stuart Goddard.

Correct; I am not he.

[J. J.]

As I understand the original post, Senator P. left the room after the Previous Question was ordered, but before the voting on the underlying question began, so it seems to me that a quorum was not present at any point during the vote or the announcement of the result. I will concede, however, that it will ultimately be up to the assembly to determine whether the minutes and the members' memories of the event constitute clear and convincing proof. I would note that the motives of Senator P. are irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether a quorum was present.

I'm not sure that either senator left the room until after any member voted. I would go with the p. 408 standard.