Point of Order Regarding Lack of Quorum at Prior Meeting

[Dan Honemann]

55 minutes ago, JamesMcLean said:

As a practical matter, it seems that if a member is dissatisfied with the consequences of a quorum ruling at meeting #1, the best course of action is to accept the ruling, and to reintroduce the question through a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted at meeting #2.  It may or may not be in order to raise a point of order concerning previous meeting.  But is there any practical outcome that can be achieved with such a point of order, but cannot be achieved with a "Something Previously Adopted" motion?  If not, then the question is effectively moot.

 

Maybe, maybe not.

For example, adoption of a motion to rescind or amend what was previously declared to have been adopted may require something more than a majority vote. Or it may well be that, although a majority may not be opposed to the motion that was declared to have been adopted, they may be convinced that there was, in fact, no quorum present when the vote was taken on it.

As previously noted, much depends upon the specific facts involved.

 

[Alexis Hunt]

I think that in terms of where it might be appropriate to revisit a Point of Order regarding the possibility of an action being null and void is where there is new information available that was not, or where the member raising the point can allege a specific error made in determining it previously. I agree with those who say that a continuing breach is not cured by a ruling, even by the assembly, that it was not continuing. In the context of an inquorate meeting, however, it is worth bearing in mind that the assembly would always have the power to Ratify the decisions made. Unless the assembly is full of folk who enjoy arguing rules for its own sake, I'd imagine that if the question of whether quorum was present at a meeting became a repeated concern, the correct path for the chair would be to suggest a motion to Ratify the decision or Rescind it. This wouldn't necessarily work where the required votes for recission couldn't be met, but if such a situation were to become acrimonious then there are deeper problems in the organization.

[Nathan Zook]

Interested in this topic, because of a scenario that played out in the mid '90s when I was just getting into these things.  Of course, this was a meeting of a county party.  The meeting started.  Role was taken.  Quorum was present.  The majority faction of the party was the majority at the meeting.  When the meeting reached new business, a series of motions began to fill vacancies.  Various people had left the meeting by this time however.  Most of the minority left about this time.  One remained, and not being properly verses in parliamentary law, started complaining loudly that "there are a lot of vacant seats here".  Eventually he was advised (by a member of the body--he had not sought recognition) that the proper action was to obtain the floor and doubt the presence of a quorum.  He did.  Quorum failed.

Memory is a bit hazy, but my recollection is that quorum probably did not fail until the bulk of the minority left after they realized that the majority was going to fill a significant number of vacancies.

My understanding was that a quorum is presumed to continue up until it's presence is shown to fail.  As mentioned repeatedly, however, given clear and convincing evidence that it had been lacking for some time, actions should be voided.

It is disturbing to think about the complexities involved if the validity of the later elections have been challenged.  I can think of no more blatant continuing breech than the improper filling of vacancies.

• Having worked with the chairman over a period of years, I am pretty certain that they would not have agreed that the appointments should be voided.  An appeal would be required.  They are of good character, but their limit was being tested by the behaviour of the minority, both in meetings and without.
• I would assume that the erroneously appointed members cannot vote on the validity of their own appointment.  But a vote on the validity of an appointment made previously necessarily can affect the validity of their own appointment.  Likewise a vote on an appointment made after.
• The striking of the erroneously appointed from the roles would have (and I am quite certain of this) broken quorum at the next meeting.
• If the strikes were done one-by-one, (started with the last appointed) you could easily hit a situation where a quorum was no longer present to continue to consider prior appointments!
• What happens if some bright spark obtains the floor immediately at the beginning of the meeting, and moves that the body "ratify any appointments which occurred after quorum was lost at the previous meeting"? Specifically, before a point of order against their being actually appointed having not been made already?  It would seem that the point of order could still be raised that they have not in fact been properly appointed, and that this point would have priority, because if it succeeds, the meeting becomes inquorate.

Suddenly, I'm glad I never tried to get paid for any of this.

 

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

I would assume that the erroneously appointed members cannot vote on the validity of their own appointment.  But a vote on the validity of an appointment made previously necessarily can affect the validity of their own appointment.  Likewise a vote on an appointment made after.

There is a thread on the issue of whether a member may vote on a question concerning his own status as a member here.

5 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

• What happens if some bright spark obtains the floor immediately at the beginning of the meeting, and moves that the body "ratify any appointments which occurred after quorum was lost at the previous meeting"? Specifically, before a point of order against their being actually appointed having not been made already?  It would seem that the point of order could still be raised that they have not in fact been properly appointed, and that this point would have priority, because if it succeeds, the meeting becomes inquorate.

And the issue of “preemptive ratification” is discussed here.

If you desire further discussion of this situation, I suggest posting a new thread.