Quorum lost, revised

[Guest Gil Szabo]

Our City Council struck a task force to make recommendations regarding opportunities for growth. The task force consisted of 13 members. At the final task force meeting City Staff running the meeting recommended to the task force to make the following recommendation to City Council. "Remove the Spiller Road area as a 'growth area', and change the future land use designation of Spiller Road to 'Rural Residential'". There were 7 members present at the meeting and made several other recommendations previous to this one which were adopted. When it was time to vote on this recommendation, one member recused himself due to a potential conflict, and left the room for a discussion and vote to take place. This Left only 6 of the 13 members to vote. Neither the Chair, nor anyone else noticed the lack of Quorum for this vote. Should this vote still stand, or can this recommendation be thrown out? Thank you

[J. J.]

A quorum in RONR is the number of people present and, if the rules creating the body do not state otherwise, is a majority of the society with and enrolled membership (40:2, #4).  I presume that there is  evidence of only 6 members being present. 

The vote is invalid and the task  force could meet again and ratify the action, or raise a point of order the the action is void due to the lack of  a quorum.   If the recommendation is forwarded to the council, any member of council could, IMO, raise a point of order that the recommendation is invalid. 

[Josh Martin]

On 1/2/2024 at 5:44 PM, Guest Gil Szabo said:

Our City Council struck a task force to make recommendations regarding opportunities for growth. The task force consisted of 13 members. At the final task force meeting City Staff running the meeting recommended to the task force to make the following recommendation to City Council. "Remove the Spiller Road area as a 'growth area', and change the future land use designation of Spiller Road to 'Rural Residential'". There were 7 members present at the meeting and made several other recommendations previous to this one which were adopted. When it was time to vote on this recommendation, one member recused himself due to a potential conflict, and left the room for a discussion and vote to take place. This Left only 6 of the 13 members to vote. Neither the Chair, nor anyone else noticed the lack of Quorum for this vote. Should this vote still stand, or can this recommendation be thrown out? Thank you

As a general matter, actions cannot be invalidated "after the fact" due the absence of a quorum. However, the reason for this is due to the fact that it is often difficult to determine whether a quorum was present at a prior time. RONR provides an exception in the event that there is "clear and convincing proof" that a quorum was not present. In this particular situation, we are told that there were exactly seven members present, and one member announced that he was recusing himself and proceeded to leave the room. This may well satisfy the "clear and convincing proof" requirement, although that will ultimately be up to the task force (or well, ultimately the council) to determine.

"Because of the difficulty likely to be encountered in determining exactly how long the meeting has been without a quorum in such cases, a point of order relating to the absence of a quorum is generally not permitted to affect prior action; but upon clear and convincing proof, such a point of order can be given effect retrospectively by a ruling of the presiding officer, subject to appeal (24)." RONR (12th ed.) 40:12

Assuming it is determined that a quorum was not present, the particular recommendation would no longer properly be the recommendation of the task force, and so I suppose it would be "thrown out," in that it would no longer be part of the task force's recommendations.

Generally, I would think the council would still be free to "Remove the Spiller Road area as a 'growth area', and change the future land use designation of Spiller Road to 'Rural Residential'" on the motion of a council member instead, but that may be governed by the council's rules or applicable law.

[Drake Savory]

What do your bylaws/standing rules about the location of the meetings?  If it is "the council meeting room in the town hall of Hincky" that would be different than just "the town hall of Hincky".  If he were still in the lobby one could argue that he was still in the location of the meeting therefore quorum was not lost.

[Atul Kapur]

On 1/3/2024 at 8:09 PM, Drake Savory said:

What do your bylaws/standing rules about the location of the meetings?  If it is "the council meeting room in the town hall of Hincky" that would be different than just "the town hall of Hincky".  If he were still in the lobby one could argue that he was still in the location of the meeting therefore quorum was not lost.

One could argue that, but one would be incorrect. 

RONR (12th ed.) 1:1 says that one of the distinguishing chacteristics of a deliberative assembly is, "The group meets in a single room or area or under equivalent conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants." (Emphasis added).

The member is not in attendance just by virtue of being in the same building, even if the bylaws don't specify a particular room as the location (which I would recommend that they don't).

Extending your example, that would mean that the Dog Lovers of Hincky in Meeting Room A and the Hincky Cat Fanciers in Meeting Room B of the town hall  would actually be in the same meeting. And as Dr. Peter Venkman told us in Ghostbusters, that can only lead to mass hysteria.

[Josh Martin]

On 1/3/2024 at 7:09 PM, Drake Savory said:

What do your bylaws/standing rules about the location of the meetings?  If it is "the council meeting room in the town hall of Hincky" that would be different than just "the town hall of Hincky".  If he were still in the lobby one could argue that he was still in the location of the meeting therefore quorum was not lost.

The purpose of the quorum requirement and rules concerning members being "present" generally are intended to ensure that the members can see and hear the proceedings, so that they can participate if they so choose, not just a box to check as a technical requirement. If the member is no longer in the same room or area as the meeting, he's no longer "present" for purposes of a quorum, regardless of what the rules say about the location of the meetings.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/4/2024 at 8:38 AM, Josh Martin said:

If he were still in the lobby one could argue that he was still in the location of the meeting therefore quorum was not lost.

One could argue in that manner, but one would be incorrect, unless the meeting were being held in the lobby.