…in a short while, anyway. My department, according to its bylaws, follows RROO and the parliamentarian is–me, who’s picked up RROO “expertise” by overhearing meetings run according to RROO. I basically know very little about them, and have had little need to. We rarely resort to RROO, things have been run in a fairly friendly, fairly casual, generally uncontentious way.
But things are now getting contentious. A few upcoming meetings will have, I’m pretty sure, demands for recognition, to have motions approved, to defeat motions because they weren’t made in strict accordance with RROO, etc. Right now, for example, a motion that passed 16-0 at our last meeting is now being challenged because RROO states that we needed a quorum which is defined as 18 (out of 27) votes and not the 16 that we decided was sufficient. When this motion comes up, I expect a bunch of supporters ( there were no dissenters last meeting obviously) to turn into dissenters. (In between that last meeting and the next one, the department elected a new chair and people who supported the motion, which empowers the Chair, now know that their guy won’t be chair, so now they’re against the 16-0 motion.)
I’m sure I’ll have more questions over the next few weeks, but if anyone is knowledgable about RROO, I’d sure like to know what, if anything, can done to make the 16-0 vote stick. Is it simply the case that a motion passed erroneously with an insufficent quorum is invalidated? What would happen if the motion passsed with an insufficient quorum and, say, three years, and not three weeks as is the case, elapsed? Would everythiing that resulted from the three years old vote be nullified?
I’m not a Robert’s rules expert by any means, but I was pretty certain that quorum was determined by the group, not read out of the Robert’s book. Or is it that quorum has to be defined in the bylaws, and if it is not, or if there are no bylaws, then quorum is defaulted to two thirds.
DO you have bylaws? Would it be possible to draw some up and get them approved quickly, or will that get messy because the people who want to get the vote invalidated would argue over the details?
We have Bylaws. They state that a quorum is 2/3s of the voting membership, which would be 18 (out of 27 voting members) and we passed the motion with 16. That’s what the issue is, that we took a vote with an inadequate quorum so that vote is not valid.
Without a quorum you didn’t have a meeting. So you didn’t take a vote. Quorums are a problem for many organizations. In my experience, the more practical rule is to have a low quorum and require motions to lay over unless published in advance in an agenda.
But that isn’t RR. By the rules, without a quorum you didn’t have a meeting and therefor no vote. One out, that doesn’t apply in this case, is that no violation of RR lasts unless challenged. So if you do something in a meeting (which you didn’t have) that turns out to be in violation of RR, if it isn’t challenged at that time (meeting), the action stands.
Well, we did have a meeting at some point because we had more than 18 members present earlier. We took a headcount before this vote, counted 16 members, and went ahead a voted. You’re saying that that vote was held essentially after the meeting had ended?
http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#3
So there is a “presumption” that the quorum continues until it is officially noticed that the quorum is gone. The Point of Order needs to be made before the vote. But it seems that the presiding officer can invalidate a vote based on clear and convincing evidence that there was no quorum present.
Kind of. I’m still not sure if this means that “the presiding officer can rule that business invalid” at that meeting where the absense of a quorum was specifically discussed but erroneously found to be satisfied by 16 voting members, or if the motion is approved when the meeting is adjourned without the absence of a quorum noted.
Given this,
“if there is clear and convincing proof no quorum was present when business was transacted, the presiding officer can rule that business invalid (subject to appeal).”
implies an after the meeting review of the minutes, and it’s all up to the presiding officer, but this
For heavens sake get a copy of Robert’s Rules. I was once parliamentarian of an organization and would have been lost without a copy. That was more than 20 years and I don’t recall much but one thing I will guarantee you is that there will be things in there that will surprise you (and everyone else in your department). Of course, you can adopt bylaws that change the rules and doubtless will, but your job is to insist that they follow whatever rules you are using, whether from Robert’s or bylaws.
As to quorum, my recollection is that unless there is a quorum call, once a quorum is reached, all votes are legal. However, it sounds like this may have been a roll call vote, for which the rules may be different. In a roll call, everyone present should be recorded as for, against, or not voting (sometimes called abstention, but there are people who object to being recorded as abstaining, so not voting is a better description).
There is nothing to stop anyone from asking for a reconsideration. It is an ordinary motion, as I recall, with the usual requirements for advance notice, debate, and so on. But without a copy of the rules, you are flying blind.
Incidentally, it is an excellent idea to have a parliamentarian. My own dept claimed to follow RROO, but there was no one with a copy of the rules and no one charged with knowing them, people made up rules as they went along. In many cases, I knew they were wrong, but I was reluctant to be seen as a know-it-all, even if I did know at least something, if not all, and so I kept quiet. I was in quite enough bad odor as it was.
If the bylaws do not define a quorum, then a quorum is a simple majority, not two-thirds. The concept of a quorum exists to allow business with fewer than a simple majority. I read in some part of the online edition of RRO http://www.rulesonline.com/ that a quorum for the House of Commons (consisting of over 700 members) is only 40! I don’t know if that’s still true.
The online RRO is the 1915 version, now in the public domain. The official site is here. They offer the book (but Amazon has a better deal) and a CD-ROM (which is a bit pricey IMHO).
RRO is not the only way to make decisions in an organization, but it’s a fairly decent and standard one. You’ll find that you can get business done better if someone knows at least something about the rules.
I’m the secretary of a professional organization which uses RRO, and since that’s a fairly easy job I took on the responsibility of being the RRO resource.
To go back to the original post: My guess is that your group will devolve into chaos if you try to stick by the original vote. It may or may not be valid, depending on what happened, and you’ll have people on both sides complaining about it.
First, please RTF bylaws. Then whatever version of RRO the bylaws specify for the parliamentary authority, read that version. Currently, most bylaws will either say “latest version” or specifically mention RRO Newly Revised, 10th Ed. (RONR 10). Every member of a formal organization should know the organization’s bylaws and parliamentary authority; most of the time, an informal application of RRO is plenty.
Since you counted 16 members present right before the matter was voted upon, and quorum is 18, you didn’t have quorum and the vote was not properly conducted. Repropose it and try again.
Technical note: Had a quorum been present at the time of the vote, and the vote was 16-0 with several abstentions, the motion would have passed – unless some special condition applied, like “3/4 vote of the membership.” A quorum doesn’t have to vote in favor of a motion, or even cast a vote at all, for the vote to be valid.
Well, that would only be true if the official minutes of the body record that ‘a count was taken prior to the vote, and only 16 members were present’. And the record of the vote itself does not stand as such a count, since some members may have chosen not to vote.
In general, a quorum challange can not be done retroactively. If a quorum existed at the start of the meeting, it is presumed to continue, and must be challanged at the time of the vote.
Roberts Rules doesn’t approve of retroactive actions in general. They are called reconsiderations, and require a larger majority to pass, and also need to be proposed by someone who voted on the prevailing side on the original motion. (The logic being that unless someone who voted on the winning side has changed their mind, there’s no point in revoting on the matter.)
Don’t let yourself get caught up in this! Motions should be defeated (or passed) based on the votes of the members, not technical objections raised after the vote.
The point of having a parlimentarian is handle such things when they arise, so that the members are able to vote on a clearly understood motion. If it’s not in accordance with RROO, the parlimentarian should advise the chair that the motion “is not in order”, prior to the vote. And a good parlimentarian would also explain to the maker of the motion (and the body) what would have to be changed to make it “in order” at this time.
BrianMelendez will probably be along shortly to fill us i on Roberts Rules. He is a recognized expert on them, and regularly teaches classes on the subject.
This piece puzzles me. As Scuba_Ben correctly observes, you must first figure out what rules apply. Why do you think that the quorum is 18 members? If your parliamentary authority is Robert’s, and your organization hasn’t adopted a rule to the contrary, the quorum is a simple majority of the membership. For a body with 27 members, the quorum is 14 – not 16 or 18 members. If the motion in question passed with 16 votes, then a quorum was present.
Another point of issue may be that of eligible voters, as defined by your bylaws. Using my fire company as an example, the eligible voter list is 38, making the quorum 19, (we also require 5 of the 9 elected officers) but that number is subject to change as new members are approved and granted voting rights, and others resign. I’ve tasked my VP to observe the number of voting members during a meeting and advise should there be a need to suspend further activity.
What is the exact language? For example, do the bylaws literally say “two-thirds of the voting members”? Or do they say a “two-thirds vote” or “two-thirds of the members voting”? These expressions have significantly different meanings (and either way, the vote required is unrelated to the quorum rule).
I’m going to argue that the meeting, by definition, began with a quorum. If we never had a quorum, then we were just a bunch of guys and gals sitting around gabbing, unable to conduct business at all. So:
We had a quorum
When we were ready to vote on the new Bylaws, we counted heads, came up with 16, and said, “Yes, we have a quorum.” IOW, the only mention of a quorum had to do with the fact that we agreed we had one. Maybe there were additional people in the room at that point who chose not to cast a vote at all, maybe there were 18 or 20 people in the room, or maybe we just made an arithmetical error, but the point is that NO ONE OBJECTED TO THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
We voted, 16-0, in favor of the motion, with no objection voiced as to the absence of a quorum
The meeting adjourned.
Thus, (I want to argue), the motion passed, and any attempt to amend the new Bylaws now requires a 2/3s vote, and not a simple majority (which is what both sets of Bylaws say).
Does this work? What’s the problem do you think I’ll encounter making this argument?
So, you had a quorum at one point, didn’t adjourn and some members left. One of the remaining members should have noticed, called for a headcount and the presiding officer should have declared the meeting adjourned. Since that didn’t happen, your vote would stand, IMHO. The process was:
valid meeting was called. you had a quorum.
people left.
no one challenged the loss of a quorum and the presiding officer didn’t declare the meeting adjourned.
A vote was taken.
In this case, the vote was technically valid. But I suspect an impartial person would declare that the meeting was over and the remaining members just didn’t notice it. The only way to avoid that is to cite the RR that a violation must be called to the chair’s attention or the actions of the meeting stand. So, you can claim you have a valid vote, but it is skakey.
