Conducting a Public Hearing Before a Common Council

[Guest Diane Coenen]

Can a public hearing be conducted by a Common Council if a quorum is not present?  The published Public Hearing (PH) notice states a PH will be held before the Common Council on a specific night.  There will not be a quorum present on that night.  Because there will not be no quorum, a Council meeting agenda will not be done, and no meeting will be held.  The agenda would have listed the public hearing as well as other agenda items, again no meeting agenda will be done.  Can the Council still assemble to listen to public comment?  Can they ask questions?  Since there will not be a meeting agenda and no meeting, can the public hearing still be held?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

The answers to these questions would have to be found in your rules.

[Josh Martin]

Can a public hearing be conducted by a Common Council if a quorum is not present? The published Public Hearing (PH) notice states a PH will be held before the Common Council on a specific night. There will not be a quorum present on that night. Because there will not be no quorum, a Council meeting agenda will not be done, and no meeting will be held. The agenda would have listed the public hearing as well as other agenda items, again no meeting agenda will be done. Can the Council still assemble to listen to public comment? Can they ask questions? Since there will not be a meeting agenda and no meeting, can the public hearing still be held?

No rule in RONR would prohibit an inquorate assembly from holding a hearing, listening to public comment, or asking questions. For that matter, so far as RONR is concerned, a meeting is still held even if no quorum is present. That meeting cannot conduct any substantive business, but it is still called to order. If nothing else, this ensures that the meeting is held in accordance with the society's rules. It also enables the assembly to conduct some of the few procedural actions available in the absence of a quorum (such as setting an adjourned meeting).

With all that said, since this is a public body, it would be prudent to see what the council's rules and applicable law provide on this subject.

[Richard Brown]

No rule in RONR would prohibit an inquorate assembly from holding a hearing, listening to public comment, or asking questions.

Aren't those things considered "conducting business"? 

 

I used to take the position that some items of business, such as listening to reports, are permissible in the absence of a quorum, but it seems to me that almost every post on the subject by regulars in this forum has taken the position that nothing but the four things specified in RONR can be validly done in the absence of a quorum:  Recess, take steps to obtain a quorum, fix the time to which to adjourn and adjourn.   Most posts by regulars say that anything else is verboten.

 

Is there something in RONR.... or perhaps in Parliamentary Law... that I am overlooking which says that these things are permissible?   Have we been taking too restrictive a position on what can be done in the absence of a quorum?   How is listening to a report from a committee chairman any different from holding a hearing and listening to public comment?   I really find it a stretch to say that a hearing can actually be conducted in the absence of a quorum.

[Josh Martin]

Aren't those things considered "conducting business"? 

 

Listening to public comment and asking questions are certainly not business. These things could just as well be done during a recess or outside of a meeting, so I don't see how the presence of a quorum has anything to do with whether they can be done.

 

I could see a reasonable argument that a public hearing constitutes business, but if that's the only sticking point, then they can still listen to comments and ask questions, and it just won't be a formal hearing.

 

Aren't those things considered "conducting business"? 

 

I used to take the position that some items of business, such as listening to reports, are permissible in the absence of a quorum, but it seems to me that almost every post on the subject by regulars in this forum has taken the position that nothing but the four things specified in RONR can be validly done in the absence of a quorum:  Recess, take steps to obtain a quorum, fix the time to which to adjourn and adjourn.   Most posts by regulars say that anything else is verboten.

 

Is there something in RONR.... or perhaps in Parliamentary Law... that I am overlooking which says that these things are permissible?   Have we been taking too restrictive a position on what can be done in the absence of a quorum?   How is listening to a report from a committee chairman any different from holding a hearing and listening to public comment?   I really find it a stretch to say that a hearing can actually be conducted in the absence of a quorum.

 

Anyone who says that "nothing but the four things specified in RONR can be validly done in the absence of a quorum:  Recess, take steps to obtain a quorum, fix the time to which to adjourn and adjourn... anything else is verboten." is certainly taking too restrictive of a position, especially because, in the 11th edition, RONR does not say that these are the only four things that can be done.

 

"Even in the absence of a quorum, the assembly may fix the time to which to adjourn (22), adjourn (21), recess (20), or take measures to obtain a quorum. Subsidiary and incidental motions, questions of privilege, motions to Raise a Question of Privilege or Call for the Orders of the Day, and other motions may also be considered if they are related to these motions or to the conduct of the meeting while it remains without a quorum." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 347-348)

 

It is, for instance, in order to Amend a motion to Recess in the absence of a quorum, because it is related to one of the listed motions. Similarly, it is in order to elect a chairman pro tempore, to raise a Question of Privilege related to conditions in the hall, and such other motions related to the conduct of the meeting. While not specifically mentioned, it seems to me it is also perfectly order to sit around and talk, ask questions, and do anything else which wouldn't require a formal meeting at all. (Some suggest adopting a motion to Recess or to Adjourn before doing this.)

 

It is correct, however, that a report cannot formally be given if a quorum is absent. I suppose the same might apply to a hearing, but I see nothing wrong with listening to comments and asking questions.

[Edgar Guest]

I see nothing wrong with listening to comments and asking questions.

 

I think the council should first adjourn and then, if they want, the council members can remain and listen to comments and questions. That would make it clear to the guests that they aren't addressing a quorate meeting (i.e. they aren't addressing "the council" or, at least, a council that could do anything).

 

"Due to the lack of a quorum, this meeting is adjourned. The members may remain to listen to your comments and answer any questions you may have."

[Gödel Fan]

I don't know the parliamentary answer, but there are most likely applicable laws because this is a governmental body.  I happen to serve in elected office, and I would consider it extremely foolhardy to hold a public hearing under those circumstances, particularly a required one - but foolhardy things are sometimes allowed.  

 

Even if you hold another public hearing, where there will be a quorum present, people who attend may be dissuaded from coming again to say the same things, and people may be confused as to why there's two.  I would reschedule the public hearing.

 

Additionally, and this is a question for a lawyer probably - if it says "before the Common Council" this may mean it has to be in front of, at the least, a portion of the Council capable of acting on what is said, i.e. a quorum.  Attendees cannot convince those not present of anything.

[Richard Brown]

I don't know the parliamentary answer, but there are most likely applicable laws because this is a governmental body.  I happen to serve in elected office, and I would consider it extremely foolhardy to hold a public hearing under those circumstances, particularly a required one - but foolhardy things are sometimes allowed.  

 

Even if you hold another public hearing, where there will be a quorum present, people who attend may be dissuaded from coming again to say the same things, and people may be confused as to why there's two.  I would reschedule the public hearing.

 

Additionally, and this is a question for a lawyer probably - if it says "before the Common Council" this may mean it has to be in front of, at the least, a portion of the Council capable of acting on what is said, i.e. a quorum.  Attendees cannot convince those not present of anything.

I agree, Godelfan.  And if "questions and comments" are going to be permitted, I believe it should done the way Mr. Guest suggested in post # 6, by adjourning first.