Parliamentary Procedure: Question on Quorum

[LoneRanger]

If a Quorum is defined in the by laws of the entity as being 10% of the voting members and 10% happens to be a decimal number, do you round up or down for purposes of determining the quorum minimum?

Example: 31 members, quorum requirement is 10%. 3 people are present for the meeting. Can you round down and say 3 is close enough to 10% (3.1) or do you have to have 4 people?

 

[ZeeOSix]

I would say 3 out of 31 (9.68%) would meet the "10%" rule in this case by rounding it up to 10%.

Unless there are some specific rules written on the quorum minimum that says it needs to be "at least 10% or greater" kind of language. In that case, you would need at least 4 out of 31 to make attendance 12.90% which is greater than 10%.

 

[DuckRyder]

Let me put it this way...

If I was part of the group and didn't like the decision I would argue that 9.68% is not 10% unless the rounding procedure is spelled out in the bylaws.

Of course I'd also argue that 10% seems absurdly low for a quorum...

 

[totegoat]

Idiots happen regardless of the cause or numbers.

 

[umungus1122]

In the strictest sense, it would need to be exactly 10% or greater. 9.999% falls short of the requirement as it's written.

 

[Kuato]

Originally Posted By: umungus1122
In the strictest sense, it would need to be exactly 10% or greater. 9.999% falls short of the requirement as it's written.


Exactly; in everything I've seen, "Quorum" means the minimum number needed to vote. Since there are 31 members, in this case 3 does not meet or exceed (like how I put in an oil reference?) the 3.1 needed, so your Quorum is 4.

 

[MNgopher]

Under the scenario provided, you would need 4 for a quorum. 3 would not meet 10%.

When in doubt, always go conservatively so there is never a question if a decision is legitimate or not.

 

[Ethan1]

Is 9.68 less than 10? OK, you have less than a quorum.

 

[TxHeat]

Robert's Rules of Order is the definitive guide on such questions. I used to have a copy but can't find it.

However, it appears that there is an online version, (what ISN'T there an online version of?!?), you might consult.

Robert's Rules of Order Online

 

[splinter]

Per Mr. Henry Robert:

"In most organizations that have regular meetings, many members are often absent. The organization should not be bound by decisions taken by an unrepresentatively small number of members who might attend a meeting. To prevent this, a quorum, -a minimum number of members who must be present- is required for a meeting to conduct substantive business."

I serve as Sergent at Arms, on the Board of Directors and Chairman of the Board of Trustees with various local and international philanthropic organizations.
Each requires a minimum of at least half (50+%) of voting members present to get on with the meetings. Your bylaws may be different.
But even I can do that math.

And an omnipresent copy of Robert's Rules of Order is used when I write agendas and to stay the course when we mix it up.

 

[Alfred_B]

Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
If a Quorum is defined in the by laws of the entity as being 10% of the voting members and 10% happens to be a decimal number, do you round up or down for purposes of determining the quorum minimum?

Example: 31 members, quorum requirement is 10%. 3 people are present for the meeting. Can you round down and say 3 is close enough to 10% (3.1) or do you have to have 4 people?



These are defined by parliamentary procedures. I would suspect most would require to cross the 10% threshold, so 4 people in your example.

Which parliament did you have in mind -- these are usually on their websites.

 

[LoneRanger]

Thanks guys, I thought it would be 4. This is to do with the Homeowner's Assoc I got tagged to be president of last year. There seems to be apathy among the homeowners which is no big deal. The budget exceeds last yr's by more than 10% so it has to be voted on but no one really seem to give a rat's rear end, which doesn't bother me or anything.

The whole hoa prez thing is just another headache side task I let myself be badgered into accepting.

Last year the developer passed the hoa to homeowners and only three showed up for that meeting but the total membership then was below 30. Several more lots have sold since then, bring up the total count. Last year each of the three of us basically had to take an officer slot in order for the hoa to survive, and since the neighborhood is so new we decided to step up and keep it going if possible.

I may be selling soon anyhow, so don't really have any interest in it anymore either, and it is somewhat of a PITA anyhow. I'm looking to not live in a neighborhood anymore, maybe something out aways from town with neighbors farther apart. No more subdivisions, that's for sure.