Walking Quorum

A walking quorum occurs when a majority of members of a decision-making body reach consensus through a series of private conversations (emails, phone calls, texts, or back-to-back meetings) rather than in an open, noticed session. Each conversation includes fewer than a quorum, but together they amount to a majority decision outside the public process.

Why It Matters

• Circumvents transparency requirements.

• Denies minority members or the public a chance to hear deliberation.

• Erodes trust in the legitimacy of decisions.

• At the federal level, can resemble “backroom deals” where legislation is effectively decided before formal debate.

Tell-Tale Signs

• In official meetings, complex decisions are adopted with little or no debate.

• Members appear to know in advance how others will vote.

• Silence or vague comments replace genuine deliberation.

• Public questions about when and how the decision was made are brushed off.

Examples Across Levels

• Local: A city council avoids discussing a zoning decision at meetings but “checks in” one by one with the mayor, who then announces consensus.

• State: A legislative committee chair circulates positions privately, ensuring a majority agrees before the public hearing.

• Federal: Party leaders negotiate a budget deal entirely behind closed doors, presenting it for a floor vote with no meaningful debate.

Countermeasures

• Strengthen sunshine/open meeting laws (where applicable) to define walking quorums as prohibited deliberation.

• Require meeting agendas and documentation for all discussions where policy positions are shaped.

• Encourage minority reports to be entered into the record if members feel excluded.

• Adopt parliamentary practices (e.g., Robert’s Rules) that protect the right to full and fair debate.

Related Patterns

• Agenda Manipulation

• Silence Strategy