Quorum Question

[Guest Sue Trock]

I have a question on a Quorum.

In our organization, a quorum is 50% plus 1.  But after watching how Congress voted, their quorum number kept changing based upon how someone "voted" whether it was present or otherwise.

Let's say we have 100 members so a quorum is 51. 

A meeting takes place and we have 5 excused absences (they're not present and not on zoom, etc).  Does that bring down the number needed for a quorum or is it still 51. 

I think I know the answer is no, but just want to be sure.

Thank you

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

Don't confuse a "quorum" with a "majority vote." And also understand that the congressional rules related to voting "present" aren't RONR rules.

A quorum is the minimum number of members that must be present to hold a meeting. Period. So by your rules, if you currently have 100 members, a quorum is 51.

In terms of voting, the RONR standard is that most motions require a majority vote of those present and voting. So if, say, 60 members actually showed up, and all 60 voted, a majority of 60 would be 31. But if, on the other hand, only 50 chose to vote, and the other ten abstained, then a majority vote on that motion would be 26. In other words, the number of votes required to adopt a motion, under regular RONR rules, can vary on any particular vote depending on how many members actually vote for or against the motion.

 

[Richard Brown]

On 3/19/2024 at 9:17 AM, Guest Sue Trock said:

In our organization, a quorum is 50% plus 1.

First, I agree completely with the response above by @Greg Goodwiller, PRP.

However, I have a concern about your actual quorum provision, though.  Do your bylaws actually state that the quorum is "50% plus 1"?  Or do they state that the quorum is a "majority" of the membership?  There is a difference.  Contrary to popular opinion, a majority is not 50 percent plus one.  Per the rules in RONR, a majority is defined simply as "more than half".  That may or not amount to the same number as 50 percent plus one.  For example:  if you have 100 members, then both a majority and 50 percent plus one mean that 51 members must be present to constitute a quorum.  But if you have 101 members, then a majority would still be 51 members needed for a quorum, but a requirement of 50 percent plus one would mean that you need 52 members for a quorum.

[Josh Martin]

On 3/19/2024 at 9:17 AM, Guest Sue Trock said:

In our organization, a quorum is 50% plus 1.  But after watching how Congress voted, their quorum number kept changing based upon how someone "voted" whether it was present or otherwise.

I would generally advise not using Congress as a reliable guide for the procedures to use in an ordinary society. Neither house of the US Congress uses RONR as its parliamentary authority. And the procedures needed for a state or national legislative assembly are quite different than what is needed for the average organization.

I'm also not entirely sure this is an accurate description of how quorum works in Congress, but that's neither here nor there.

On 3/19/2024 at 9:17 AM, Guest Sue Trock said:

Let's say we have 100 members so a quorum is 51. 

A meeting takes place and we have 5 excused absences (they're not present and not on zoom, etc).  Does that bring down the number needed for a quorum or is it still 51. 

Quorum is still 51.

To be clear, the meaning of the term "quorum" is the number of members who must be present in order to conduct business. It has nothing to do with the number of members voting on any particular question. As a result, reducing the quorum by absences would kind of defeat the point.

The fact that an absence is "excused" or not (which is a subject RONR does not address) has nothing to do with it. For purposes of the quorum, a member is either present or not. Why the member is not present is immaterial.

I also note that you reference "Zoom," and I would note that participation by remote means is permitted only if authorized by your bylaws or applicable law. Unless such authorization exists, members must be physically present in order to participate and count toward the quorum.

I also concur with Mr. Brown that you should double-check your bylaws to see whether they actually provide that quorum is "50% plus one," or if that's just your paraphrase. While it doesn't make a difference if the number of members is an even number, it does make a difference if the number of members is an odd number,

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/19/2024 at 10:17 AM, Guest Sue Trock said:

I have a question on a Quorum.

In our organization, a quorum is 50% plus 1.  But after watching how Congress voted, their quorum number kept changing based upon how someone "voted" whether it was present or otherwise.

Let's say we have 100 members so a quorum is 51. 

A meeting takes place and we have 5 excused absences (they're not present and not on zoom, etc).  Does that bring down the number needed for a quorum or is it still 51. 

I think I know the answer is no, but just want to be sure.

Thank you

The quorum requirement, In Congress or elsewhere does not change based on voting.   The number (e.g. majority) required to pass a resolution or elect someone does change based on the number of votes cast, but that's not the same thing.  

If the quorum is 51, that means that fifty-one members must be present for business to be conducted.   If five members are absent, then the remaining 95 members fulfill the quorum requirement.   If there were fewer than 51 present, no vote could be conducted anyway.

A majority of 95 members is 48, assuming everyone votes, but if some members do not vote (i.e. answer Present), then this number can decrease.  To determine if a majority has been achieved all that is necessary is that the number of Yes votes is greater than the number of No votes.  If the number of Yes votes is less than or equal to the number of No votes, then the question is not agreed to.  The number abstaining, or responding Present, or not responding at all, is not significant, as long as they are physically there.

 

[Drake Savory]

That was the rule in the House of Representative until February 9, 1890 when Speaker Reed took action to change the rules to prevent the "disappearing quorum".  After that, voting "present" did not change the quorum numbers.

 

Also, are your sure the quorum is 50%+1 and not just a majority?  I hear people equate these two measures all the time but they are not.  They differ by one (unless you count half-a-member) for an odd number of members.

Edited March 27, 2024 at 01:45 AM by Drake Savory

[Richard Brown]

On 3/26/2024 at 8:36 PM, Drake Savory said:

That was the rule in the House of Representative until February 9, 1890 when Speaker Reed took action to change the rules to prevent the "disappearing quorum".  After that, voting "present" did not change the quorum numbers.

To whom and to which comment are you responding? That’s what the “quote” feature is for! 

So, help us out here: what was the voting “present” rule in Congress before February 9, 1890 and what is it now?  What effect did it have on calculating the presence of a quorum then and what effect does it have on that now?

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/28/2024 at 5:27 PM, Richard Brown said:

So, help us out here: what was the voting “present” rule in Congress before February 9, 1890 and what is it now?  What effect did it have on calculating the presence of a quorum then and what effect does it have on that now?

I think he is referring to the former practice wherein a member who did not respond to call of the roll was not counted as being present for purposes of determining a quorum. 

[Drake Savory]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:27 PM, Richard Brown said:

So, help us out here: what was the voting “present” rule in Congress before February 9, 1890 and what is it now?  What effect did it have on calculating the presence of a quorum then and what effect does it have on that now?

Before then, someone refusing to vote was considered not present for the purpose of a quorum.  Although then it was simply not saying anything.  So what would happen is, and I am simplifying the numbers, 48 vote yea, 1 votes nay, 51 abstain or are not present.  Doesn't pass because only 49 of the 100 are "present".  Then someone makes a quorum call and 51 don't answer or try to leave the hall thus no quorum.

On January 29, 1890 after such a disappearing quorum vote, Speaker Reed locked the doors and ordered to clerk to record everyone in the room as present, which resulted in Representatives complaining that they weren't really there.  However, the motion in question ultimately passed 162-3-163 with 179 needed for quorum.  The rule abolishing the disappearing quorum became a House Rule on February 6, 1890.

[Rob Elsman]

Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution  defines the quorum in each house to do business as a majority of the members. This requirement does not change and cannot be suspended.

[J. J.]

On 3/28/2024 at 5:27 PM, Richard Brown said:

To whom and to which comment are you responding? That’s what the “quote” feature is for! 

So, help us out here: what was the voting “present” rule in Congress before February 9, 1890 and what is it now?  What effect did it have on calculating the presence of a quorum then and what effect does it have on that now?

For background see:  

United States v. Ballin, et al., 144 U.S. 1 (1892)

Evan, William J., “Is Parliamentary Law ‘Law’,” National Parliamentarian, 42 (1981), no. 1, 7-9.

 

[Drake Savory]

On 3/28/2024 at 5:05 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution  defines the quorum in each house to do business as a majority of the members. This requirement does not change and cannot be suspended.

The point is that before Speaker Reed, if you were in the chamber yet refused to vote or answer the quorum call, you were considered not present for the purpose of the quorum.  Reed changed the rule so if you were physically there then you were counted towards the quorum whether you answered or not.

[Rob Elsman]

The real point is that the minimum number of members needed for a quorum has nothing to do with whether or how a member voted, provided he was present. The Constitution is very clear about this. All this stuff about Speaker Reed is something of a red herring.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/28/2024 at 7:05 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution  defines the quorum in each house to do business as a majority of the members. This requirement does not change and cannot be suspended.

 

On 3/29/2024 at 9:19 AM, Rob Elsman said:

The real point is that the minimum number of members needed for a quorum has nothing to do with whether or how a member voted, provided he was present. The Constitution is very clear about this. All this stuff about Speaker Reed is something of a red herring.

Speaker Reed's ruling didn't concern the number of members needed to constitute a quorum (a majority).  Instead, it concerned the method of counting the number of members present to determine if a quorum was present, and certainly was a big deal at the time.  Caused a ruckus that continued for days.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I think the prior reasoning went something like this: My job is to vote, and if I'm in the room but not doing my job am I really present? 

[Gary Novosielski]

One of my former places of employment had an informal rule on the subject.  If an employee did absolutely nothing for an extended period of time, merely checking for no pulse was not sufficient evidence to have them declared dead.  It required holding a mirror under their nose while waving a paycheck in front of their face.