Counting Associate Member Votes Only to Reach Quorum

[Guest Guest_Attorney]

Our city has a Historical Preservation Board, which has two kinds of membership: regular and associate. Local ordinance provides that "[a]ssociate commissioners shall strive to attend all scheduled meetings and may participate fully in the meetings and deliberations of the commission but without vote unless standing in for an absent commissioner." Currently, the secretary will only count votes of associate members until a quorum is reached (e.g. Two regular and two associate members are present, with two regular members absent. Three members are needed for quorum, and therefore only one associate member vote is recorded.) Is there any rule of procedure which addresses stopping at quorum in this situation as opposed to letting all associate members vote as long as they could be filling in for an absent member? 

The bylaws are currently silent as to this issue and we are attempting to amend them to provide clarity.

[Joshua Katz]

No, there are no rules in RONR about such a situation, because the rule in need of application comes from your ordinances, not RONR. Since it involves a local ordinance, I would suggest consulting an attorney, or at least a parliamentarian knowledgable about the applicable laws. It is unclear to me, just from glancing at the relevant procedure, how one goes about standing in for an absent commissioner, and what discretarion the board has in seating them.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/12/2023 at 4:16 PM, Guest Guest_Attorney said:

Is there any rule of procedure which addresses stopping at quorum in this situation as opposed to letting all associate members vote as long as they could be filling in for an absent member? 

Not in RONR, no.  RONR provides that classes of member other than simply "member"  would have to be provided for in your bylaws, along with rules on how to handle situations such as you describe.

On 12/12/2023 at 4:16 PM, Guest Guest_Attorney said:

The bylaws are currently silent as to this issue and we are attempting to amend them to provide clarity.

Good luck. Check in if you need feedback on your draft language.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with my colleagues and will add that I find the secretary's practice of not counting the votes of any "alternates" once quorum is achieved to be most unusual.  I haven't seen your bylaws or the ordinances in question, but if "alternates" (the more common term) are permitted, I'm willing to bet that the secretary's interpretation is a stretch.

As my colleagues stated, this is a matter of interpreting your governing ordinances. That is something we cannot do for you.

Edited to add:  BTW, I seriously question the secretary's authority to unilaterally decide which votes she or he is going to count! I would think that the committee (or commission) itself should be making this decision, not the secretary, unless the ordinances grant him or her unusual powers.  What does the city attorney say about this?

 

Edited December 13, 2023 at 11:51 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Josh Martin]

On 12/12/2023 at 3:16 PM, Guest Guest_Attorney said:

Our city has a Historical Preservation Board, which has two kinds of membership: regular and associate. Local ordinance provides that "[a]ssociate commissioners shall strive to attend all scheduled meetings and may participate fully in the meetings and deliberations of the commission but without vote unless standing in for an absent commissioner." Currently, the secretary will only count votes of associate members until a quorum is reached (e.g. Two regular and two associate members are present, with two regular members absent. Three members are needed for quorum, and therefore only one associate member vote is recorded.) Is there any rule of procedure which addresses stopping at quorum in this situation as opposed to letting all associate members vote as long as they could be filling in for an absent member? 

RONR has no rules concerning persons "filling in" for members. In RONR, you're either a member or you're not.

The one context in which RONR does have persons "filling in" is in the context of a convention, in which alternates are "upgraded" to take the place of absent delegates. But in that context, alternates have none of the rights of members unless and until they are upgraded, as opposed to your rules, in which these "associates" apparently have all rights except the right to vote, unless they are upgraded. I'm not sure to what extent the rules for conventions are of assistance here, but in that context, alternates continue to be upgraded until a.) you run out of vacant delegate positions in the given delegation or b.) you run out of alternates in the given delegation. You don't stop upgrading simply because the convention has a quorum.

Since this question concerns a local ordinance, however, I think this will ultimately be a question for the city's clerks and attorneys.

One other question that comes to mind for this is - what happens if there is only one regular member absent, but there are two associate members present? Whose vote gets counted in that circumstance? Does the absent member choose which associate gets to represent him? Is there a "ranking order" of associate members?

On 12/13/2023 at 5:38 PM, Richard Brown said:

Edited to add:  BTW, I seriously question the secretary's authority to unilaterally decide which votes she or he is going to count! I would think that the committee (or commission) itself should be making this decision, not the secretary, unless the ordinances grant him or her unusual powers.  What does the city attorney say about this?

I'm actually not sure even the board should be making this decision. Since the rule in question is found in city ordinance, not the board's own rules, that decision may ultimately rest with a higher authority.

I agree, however, that certainly the secretary has no authority to make such decisions. Under the rules in RONR, rulings are made by the chair (not the secretary), subject to appeal.

Edited December 14, 2023 at 04:09 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

It's worth noting that, even if there were some justification (say, a rule we don't know about) for the stop-at-quorum procedure, we'd still be left with the question of which people to allow to vote, a certainly non-trivial question, since they do not appear to be standing in for any specific individuals.