[MissoulaGov] On having a quorum

[Jim McGrath]

I'm pretty sure the US congress conducts itself without a quorum
frequently. Turn on the TV and watch the lone congressman reading
something or other into the record. Often what counts as a first or
second reading of a bill is done that way.

I think it depends on what the "business" is at hand. Council committees
-even the committee of the whole-cannot make decisions. So to allow
testimony into the record (which absent members get the benfit of by
reading) and moving forward mundane business to be finalized later is
not particularly problematic. 

Decisions such as tabling a bill or amending one would be inappropriate.


 

 

________________________________

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Jed Taylor
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 3:20 AM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: [MissoulaGov] On having a quorum

 

Here's Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum>  on the subject.
I see Mason's is $60, so I guess further exploration requires a trip to
library, but I trust each Council member gets a copy along with the
laptop.

 

In general, though, I want to express my support of Ross Best's position
that a committee should have a quorum to conduct business.  He's quite
correct that it's nonsensical to say that it's ok to conduct business
when the number required to conduct business isn't present.

 

I understand that it's not always possible for every committee member to
attend every meeting; nonetheless, if enough members aren't in
attendance, it's simply improper for a governmental body to conduct
business.  That's why a quorum is less than the total number of members,
and typically only half.

 

I understand that no one's getting rich serving on the Council, and that
such service requires grappling with a wide range of technical and
arcane issues.  Between meetings, research, and reading stuff like this
email, I'd imagine it's at least a 1/2 time job.  I have no doubt that
none of the Council members are getting paid what their work is worth;
it may be impossible to really do so.  Even so, anyone who decides to
run should understand and accept the responsibility to make scheduled
meetings and the effect failing to do so has on both fellow members and
the citizens they serve.

 

I suspect that this issue, as a practical matter, appears very
infrequently, and that's a good thing.  And, yes, it would be quite
inconvenient to those who appear at a scheduled meeting to find it's not
going to be held.  But what's convenient shouldn't trump what's right,
and the right thing to do (and perhaps even the legal thing) is either
have a quorum or adjourn.  I hope the Council will decide to stop trying
to write a rule that excuses a lack of a quorum and simply accept the
requirement to have one to conduct its business, as well as the
consequences that naturally follow.

 

 

 

________________________________

"Be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090215/7ac820ae/attachment.htm>