Members present count when quorum required

[Shirl]

What is the rule when a quorum (two thirds of the quorum present for us) is required in the following: beginning of meeting a member count is taken and recorded in the minutes, during the meeting 4 members join and 1 member leaves the meeting prior to balloting?  A current member’s present re-count was not conducted; the ballots are passed out, marked and counted. Is a recount of members present required since there was a change? Are the votes invalid since a recount was not done?

[jstackpo]

Setting aside my concern for what you mean saying that "a quorum" is "two thirds of the quorum present for us" which doesn't make a lot of sense,  there is no need to recount people as long as it is clear to the chair (or any concerned member) that a quorum's worth of members are still present.  A few (minor) ins and outs are of no concern.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

 Is a recount of members present required since there was a change? Are the votes invalid since a recount was not done?

Shirl,

Good news.

Your vote is valid.

 

Actual counting and recording of the number members present is not a rule in Robert's Rules of Order.

You (or the chair, really) must ascertain that a quorum is present. That's all.

But the actual number (Arabic numeral) need not be written down, if you are asking strictly about Robert's Rules of Order.

 

And more good news.

It violates no rule of Robert's Rules of Order to have a mismatch between:

(a.) the number of ballots passed out (or collected); vs.

(b.) the number comprising the quorum at the top of the meeting (or at any time in the meeting).

[Rev Ed]

And if you are not sure if there is quorum, you have a right to make a Point of Order that quorum has been lost, per page 349 of RONR.

[Edgar Guest]

. . . during the meeting 4 members join and 1 member leaves . . .

 

Out of a total attendance of what . . . Six? Sixteen? Sixty?

[Josh Martin]

What is the rule when a quorum (two thirds of the quorum present for us) is required in the following: beginning of meeting a member count is taken and recorded in the minutes, during the meeting 4 members join and 1 member leaves the meeting prior to balloting?

 

It looks like the attendance increased, so I'm not sure why there's any question about the quorum. If a quorum was present when the count was taken at the beginning of the meeting, a quorum is obviously still present if four more members join and only one member leaves.

 

A current member’s present re-count was not conducted; the ballots are passed out, marked and counted. Is a recount of members present required since there was a change? Are the votes invalid since a recount was not done?

 

No to both questions.

[Shirl]

sixty were present at the begining of the meeting, our statutes require two thirds favorable vote of the members present, members present 63, ballots cast count 60,  the question was posed to me for the following reasons:

1) each of the total counts, favorable and against were not provided to the members

2) the members were only advised that the motion passed favorable with two thirds in favor

3) the totals for each, cast ballots, favorable and against were not recorded in the minutes

4) how can the members be assured of 60 votes, two thirds were in favor, simply on a persons word?

4) recount was not taken

 

I'm a newbie and struggling with this one.

[Josh Martin]

sixty were present at the begining of the meeting, our statutes require two thirds favorable vote of the members present, members present 63, ballots cast count 60,  the question was posed to me for the following reasons:

1) each of the total counts, favorable and against were not provided to the members

2) the members were only advised that the motion passed favorable with two thirds in favor

3) the totals for each, cast ballots, favorable and against were not recorded in the minutes

4) how can the members be assured of 60 votes, two thirds were in favor, simply on a persons word?

4) recount was not taken

 

Thank you. These new facts change things considerably. If the rules require a vote of 2/3 of the members present in order to adopt a motion, then it is indeed required to count the number of members present immediately before a vote is taken, since such a count is necessary to know whether the motion is adopted. It was also improper for the members to be "only advised that the motion passed favorable with two thirds in favor." The full results of a ballot vote must be read to the assembly and recorded in the minutes.

 

It is too late, however, to do anything about any of this now. None of these rule violations constitute a continuing breach. A member should have raised a Point of Order at the time, followed by an Appeal if necessary.

[Richard Brown]

Setting aside my concern for what you mean saying that "a quorum" is "two thirds of the quorum present for us" which doesn't make a lot of sense, 

 

I, for one, am still not satisfied that the original poster has correctly stated the quorum requirement for this organization.  The quorum requirement as stated by the original poster makes absolutely no  sense.

 

The poster's later statements about the vote requirement (two-thirds of those present) are leaving me with an uneasy feeling, too.

 

I would feel much better if I knew what, precisely, the bylaws (or statutes) say about the quorum requirement and the vote requirement on this issue.  For example, a vote requirement of "two thirds favorable vote of the members present" as the poster said their statutes require just doesn't strike me as the wording typically used by such a statute.  Does it mean "a two-thirds vote of the members present" or a "vote of two-thirds of the members present"?   I don't think the two statements necessarily mean the same thing.

 

I'm also concerned with the original poster adding a statement of what their "statutes" require.  That makes me believe that this is a public body of some kind that is likely governed by statutes which control their procedures, rather than RONR.