Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Public Hearing on Item without a Quorom


Guest Tonya Ingram

Recommended Posts

At the beginning of a public hearing (Board of Adjustment) there was a quorom. During one of the items, one member had to recuse himself therefore there was no longer a quorom to vote on the item. Can a public hearing still be held on that item and the remaining members just not vote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can a public hearing still be held on that item and the remaining members just not vote?

It wouldn't be an "official" hearing so you might have to do it all over again when a quorum is present. In other words, it would be no different than adjourning the meeting and holding the hearing after the meeting was over. You might also be subject to various state and municipal laws, including so-called "sunshine laws".

By the way, nothing in RONR requires a member to "recuse" himself. Even if a member chooses not to vote, he can remain in the room (and, therefore, continue to count towards the quorum). Again, your rules may, and probably do, vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It states in our bylaws:

"No member of the Board may vote on any application in which he has a proprietary, tenancy, or personal interest, nor upon any design or plan which he is employed to make."

So that alleviates any question about voting and we require a majority of members which is 5 because we have 9 members.

So in essence, from what I understand, even if the Board 'said' they had a public hearing on an item that didn't have a quorom, it would still need to go back on the next agenda for action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It states in our bylaws:

"No member of the Board may vote on any application in which he has a proprietary, tenancy, or personal interest, nor upon any design or plan which he is employed to make."

So that alleviates any question about voting and we require a majority of members which is 5 because we have 9 members.

Well, just because he couldn't vote doesn't mean he had to leave the room, although even if he stayed he wouldn't count towards the quorum since only members with the right to vote are counted.

So in essence, from what I understand, even if the Board 'said' they had a public hearing on an item that didn't have a quorom, it would still need to go back on the next agenda for action.

That's how I see it. According to RONR (and your rules may vary) there are only a very few things that can be done without a quorum and holding a public hearing isn't one of them.

But stick around (or come back later) for some other opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, just because he couldn't vote doesn't mean he had to leave the room, although even if he stayed he wouldn't count towards the quorum since only members with the right to vote are counted.

That's how I see it. According to RONR (and your rules may vary) there are only a very few things that can be done without a quorum and holding a public hearing isn't one of them.

But stick around (or come back later) for some other opinions.

Thank you for all your information and wisdom on this matter. I will keep check on the responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the beginning of a public hearing (Board of Adjustment) there was a quorom. During one of the items, one member had to recuse himself therefore there was no longer a quorom to vote on the item. Can a public hearing still be held on that item and the remaining members just not vote?

"... one member had to recuse himself therefore there was no longer a quorum..."

Nonsense.

To recuse one's self never alters the quorum.

If the person counted toward the quorum at the hour of commencement, then that person ALWAYS will count throughout that meeting.

(I assume this person does not resign during the meeting; I assume this person is not suspended or expelled during this meeting.)

So your question is moot, isn't it? - You never lost your quorum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It states in our bylaws:

"No member of the Board may vote on any application in which he has a proprietary, tenancy, or personal interest, nor upon any design or plan which he is employed to make."

So that alleviates any question about voting and we require a majority of members which is 5 because we have 9 members.

So in essence, from what I understand,

even if the Board 'said' they had a public hearing on an item that didn't have a quorum, it would still need to go back on the next agenda for action.

Wait!

You had said that someone had recused himself.

Recusal does not alter the status of the quorum.

So your question is based on a false premise. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... one member had to recuse himself therefore there was no longer a quorum..."

Nonsense.

To recuse one's self never alters the quorum.

If the person counted toward the quorum at the hour of commencement, then that person ALWAYS will count throughout that meeting.

(I assume this person does not resign during the meeting; I assume this person is not suspended or expelled during this meeting.)

So your question is moot, isn't it? - You never lost your quorum.

Wait!

You had said that someone had recused himself.

Recusal does not alter the status of the quorum.

So your question is based on a false premise. Right?

I agree that recusal (a voluntary act) would not affect the quorum (provided the member stayed in the room), but the member was actually deprived of the right to vote by a provision in the Bylaws. This would mean that the member was not a voting member and does not count toward the quorum.

Given the facts provided, it does seem that in this particular instance the assembly would have lost quorum as a result of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that recusal (a voluntary act) would not affect the quorum (provided the member stayed in the room), but the member was actually deprived of the right to vote by a provision in the Bylaws. This would mean that the member was not a voting member and does not count toward the quorum.

Given the facts provided, it does seem that in this particular instance the assembly would have lost quorum as a result of this.

Granted, the bylaws put into a "must not" or "cannot" formula what RONR puts in a "should not" formula.

Nonetheless, the person is a voting member of that body, even if there will be one or two motions entertained where he cannot vote on a given main motion.

A quorum is not counted based on a main motion pending at any given moment.

A quorum is based on members empowered to vote on business of that body, who is present at the top of the meetings (and present for a quorum call).

Here, this "conflicted" person can certainly vote on all the parliamentary motions (e.g., to Amend, To Postpone Definitely, etc.) adhering to a main motion on which he cannot vote.

So it would erroneous to label this conflicted person a non-voting member of this body.

(There is no such class recognized within Robert's Rules of Order. There are no classes of membership in RONR, or, put another way, there is only one class.)

***

If a person, in theory, were considered a "non-member" for the few minutes a conflicting motion were on the floor, then, to be consistent, this conflicted person could not properly (a.) speak; (b.) make motions. But we know this is not the case. Therefore, it is misleading to think 100% of the rights of this conflicted member float away magically, as each main motion is placed before the assembly. He is still a "member". The fact that he can ONLY vote BEFORE or AFTER the immediately pending question still won't affect the quorum.

***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore, it is misleading to think 100% of the rights of this conflicted member float away magically, as each main motion is placed before the assembly.

I'm certainly not comfortable with the idea of a quorum fading in and out as a particular motion comes before the assembly and so Mr. Goldsworthy's reasoning is persuasive. Though I also look forward to a rebuttal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonetheless, the person is a voting member of that body, even if there will be one or two motions entertained where he cannot vote on a given main motion.

I concede that RONR does not directly address this issue, and this is one way to look at it. Personally, I have always interpreted the effect of such a provision to be analogous to the situation when a member's rights are under disciplinary suspension.

If a person, in theory, were considered a "non-member" for the few minutes a conflicting motion were on the floor, then, to be consistent, this conflicted person could not properly (a.) speak; (b.) make motions. But we know this is not the case. Therefore, it is misleading to think 100% of the rights of this conflicted member float away magically, as each main motion is placed before the assembly. He is still a "member". The fact that he can ONLY vote BEFORE or AFTER the immediately pending question still won't affect the quorum.

But it is important to note that RONR does make the distinction of "voting member" for the purposes of defining a quorum. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 334, lines 2-5) It seems clear that members whose rights are under disciplinary suspension or individuals defined as a "non-voting member" by the Bylaws would not count toward the quorum. Whether a member whose right to vote is deprived for only one motion would count toward the quorum is, admittedly, a more complex question which will involve the interpretation of the assembly's Bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...