Article I Section 6 and quorum

Article I section 6 of the constitution reads, in part:



I'm not a member of the SC, but I read this as meaning that, to pass a bill, you need affirmative votes from 50%+1 of all members (three of five currently) regardless of how many do or do not attend the meeting. This may be good for two reasons. First, asynchronous voting makes any notion of quorum or lack thereof flimsy. Second, there is no mention of RA quorum in either the constitution or RA procedures, even though we tend to, by convention, work with an expectation of 50% +1 members constituting one.

Then I saw this in a transcript from January 2005 (Note- You is Gwyneth Llewelyn):



The question is, was Ulrika's suggestion a ruling on the then and still nonexistent RA policies on quorum or a binding ruling of the SC interpreting Article I, Section 6? If it applies to the constitution, I can only read it as indicating that

1)50% is of those present and voting.
2)The number of RA members present and voting can be as low as two.

This seems to fly directly in the face of the phrase “of representative seats” in the text of I, 6. My sense from reading the transcript is that it was done in a desire to get some things passed without particular attention to the precedent it may have set. If left to stand, it seems to leave the legislative process open to abuse. Get another RA member. Have a sudden meeting, Pass whatever you want. Let me hasten to add that I don't think any former or current RA members would try to pull that, but we're trying to create a durable, stable government system here. So, here are my questions to the SC:

1)Did the two persons of the then seven person RA have the authority to pass the event tax repeal on 30 January 2005?
2)If so, how do you reconcile this precedent with the text of I, 6?
3)What is the constitutional standard for RA bill/constitutional amendment passage?
4)Which rules regarding quorum may the RA pass as internal policy, and which require constitutional change?

Except you'd still need at least half of the RA in on the act. Given our online nature, a "face to face" meeting is more a convience than a necessity, in my eyes. It's still desirable to have a quorum in the sense that it makes the process faster, but I don't see your scenario as plausible.

Why would you need half the RA? Show me where a quorum rule requiring half the RA to be attendance is written down. I couldn't find it. In the example I quoted 2 votes from a seven seat RA passed a bill to eliminate the event tax.

I probably sound flippant or alarmist. I don't mean to be. As for plausibility. a very small (less than 50%) part of the RA passing a bill can happen because it has happened. It's right there in the transcript, which is in the forums. The thread shows up dated March 6 2005 because of later postings.

ah. Under my interpretation, you still required half the RA to actually vote for it.



Given the time, I'm disinclined to accept it as an applicable precedent, but I'll have to defer to Gwyn's judgement to that, given she's Dean and was there.

Hello all,

I'm sorry for not posting yesterday — it was a bit late for me to think clearly

What the Constitution says is:


Simple majority (emphsasis is mine) is a well-defined concept. I should point you out to the following comment:

This was deliberate, since at the very beginning of Neualtenburg we were afraid that the RA would not be able to meet fully.

Usually, when dealing with simple majorities, a quorum is defined. At the time of the deliberation that Claude has quoted, a quorum was not set.

Later, however, the RA under Pendari established the RA procedures, which were voted as a bill. Still, neither a quorum, nor a change towards "absolute majority" on was established. This is simply a "house rule" — traditionally, except for the quoted transcript, the RA has only met when there were more than 50% (+1) members present.

However, to the best of my knowledge, the quorum was not "codified". It was simply a "traditional" thing that we felt we should avoid: a RA meeting without enough people to deliberate. The LRA traditionally 'decided' when the RA had no quorum to meet. The new RA procedrures tend to put the burden of decision on the validity of the meetings on the LRA (ie. it's the LRA that calls for a meeting by setting the agenda).

Mind you, 1Q2005 was an all-time low in terms of participation in N'burg...

OK. I get the simple majority definition. It sounds as if the only gap is in not defining quorum anywhere in the RA procedures.

Yes, I think that could be part of the RA's procedures.

Actually, both the SC and the Guild should think about the same issue. The SC has dramatically 'abused' the issue of 'no minimum quorums' since it has had so few (voting) members