In this article
A walking quorum, also called a rolling quorum, happens when a majority of a public board reaches a decision through a series of smaller conversations, emails or messages instead of an open, noticed meeting, which puts the board in breach of open meeting laws. Open meeting laws forbid secret meetings in smoke-filled rooms that reek of corruption. Most public servants would agree that they are necessary to a functioning democracy.
Many 'secret meetings,' though, do not have bouncers requiring passwords in the back rooms of bars. What if two municipal board members meet for lunch and discuss board business? They could be part of a 'rolling quorum,' which would put them in violation of open meeting laws. Common sense and a history of rulings suggest guidelines for keeping board communications compliant with open meeting laws.
This article covers:
Each state has an open meeting act that applies to its state agencies the same constraints that the federal 'Sunshine Act' puts on federal agencies. It specifies that any time there is a gathering of a group of people who are authorized to vote on public business, the public has the right to hear the discussions and to see the votes. The public must receive notice of the meeting one or two weeks prior to the meeting (with the exact lead time depending on the state), and records of the discussion and the votes must be made available to the public.
On a first reading, open meeting acts are quite simple. A section of the Louisiana Open Meeting Act states:
It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens be advised of and aware of the performance of public officials and the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy.
The devil is in the details. Specific requirements of open meeting laws create gray areas. A seemingly innocent board member may unwittingly violate their state's laws.
One might, for instance, unknowingly conduct the kind of secret balloting that most open meeting laws prohibit. Of course, board members cannot offer bribes to other members for certain votes or even twist their arms, but it is even illegal for a board member to hold conversations with fellow members to informally count supporters on an upcoming vote. It is hard to imagine each council member having complete ignorance of others' views on an upcoming matter. It is nevertheless incumbent on each board member not to cross the line into informal polling.
A board member might also remain silent if their board seems to abuse the right to hold occasional closed sessions. If the board will discuss confidential information or matters that would violate a person's right to privacy, the board may call an Executive Session, away from the eyes and ears of the public. If used too much, Executive Sessions can violate open meeting laws. At the very least, it may provoke citizen accusations of secret government.
Overusing Executive Session can destroy public confidence. Because it used Executive Session liberally, the school board in Charleston, SC, was accused of determining a location for a high school stadium and obligating millions of dollars in related construction contracts entirely without public awareness or input. Earning back the trust of the public could take years.
If a board member violates their state's open meeting act, the penalty can be severe. Mild penalties include negating the results of a vote or publishing the proceedings of an Executive Session. Individual board members can be fined, though. It is even possible for a board member to face criminal charges. To ward off such a nightmare, it is important for board members to consciously avoid one of the most common inadvertent violations of sunshine laws: rolling quorums.
Also called a 'walking quorum,' a rolling quorum is defined by the state of Wisconsin as, 'a series of meetings, teleconferences, or some other means of communication such that groups of less than a quorum are effectively meeting and can arrive at a consensus or understanding regarding governmental business that, collectively, would constitute a quorum.'
In other words, a rolling quorum occurs when a quorum is achieved without all the members needed being present in the same room at the same time. They might discuss public business by email or phone call over several days. This practice unequivocally puts its practitioners in violation of public meeting laws. There are ways to avoid such a costly transgression.
The ban on rolling quorums reflects a suspicion that a de facto meeting might take place outside the regularly scheduled place and time. To avoid violating the rule, it is best to avoid anything that might resemble a meeting.
To wit:
Either a conglomeration of board members at a party or an email trail could count as the type of 'meeting' that constitutes a rolling quorum. A seemingly innocent social event can put a board member in violation of the rules. Say the mayor and all eight city councilors sit at one table in a restaurant to celebrate a retirement.
Technically, it counts as a meeting if any public business whatsoever is discussed, since more than half the voting members were present. (Five council members would be enough.) They need not take an informal poll to break the law. If they make any decisions or set any policies binding on the city council, they are creating a rolling quorum. Experienced council members advise avoiding such events entirely, as they can create the appearance of a rolling quorum, and that alone could tarnish the council's public image.
Check our AI-powered board management software.
The advent of email has created new questions as to what constitutes a 'meeting.' In court, email raises more suspicion than traditional mail because the communication can be nearly instantaneous, as it is in face-to-face meetings. States differ in their treatment of email. In Arkansas, emails are never construed as 'meetings,' while in Colorado, they are. It is a good idea for council members to consult their state's open meeting laws. Test cases in scrupulous states suggest limiting emails to two people per email, with the sender conveying information, but not requesting a reply or an opinion.
Open-government test cases suggest that email among board members don’t amount to an illegal meeting only when it strictly meets the three following conditions:
A good rule of thumb is that emailing among a small number of council members is fine if it just passes along information, but not if it encourages or opens a group discussion. In that spirit, the state of Virginia has clarified that the following exchanges are permitted in that state:
Recent enforcement shows how easily boards cross that line. In 2022, a Colorado judge ruled that four Douglas County school board members violated the state’s open meetings law by using a series of private one-on-one conversations — a walking quorum — to decide to remove their superintendent before any public vote. The court held that circumventing the law through serial private meetings breaks it in fact, not just in spirit.
When in doubt, a council member should err on the side of caution. Creating the appearance of an electronic closed meeting can erode public trust even if it flies under the radar of the state's open meeting laws.
State open meeting laws forbid municipal board members from creating rolling quorums. A secret meeting today is more likely to resemble a simple social outing or an email chain. Every municipal board member should read the open meeting laws in their state and exercise caution so that casual conversations do not add up to a rolling quorum.
Avoiding a walking quorum is partly a matter of discipline and partly a matter of having the right channels for public business, ones that keep discussion inside noticed, recorded meetings rather than scattered across private inboxes. Diligent Community, Diligent's meeting and governance software for public and elected boards, is purpose-built for exactly this environment. It centralizes agenda building, board materials and voting inside a noticed meeting workflow, publishes an ADA-compliant public transparency portal so citizens can see agendas, minutes and decisions, and keeps a full audit trail of actions taken in open session. Keeping deliberation and decisions inside that structured, public-by-design system is one of the clearest ways for a council to demonstrate it is not conducting business through a rolling quorum.
A walking quorum, also called a rolling quorum, occurs when a majority of a public board reaches a collective decision through a series of smaller communications rather than in a single open, noticed meeting. Because the members effectively deliberate as a body outside public view, a walking quorum violates open meeting laws even though the members are never all in the same room at the same time. The prohibition exists to prevent boards from sidestepping public transparency requirements.
A regular quorum is the minimum number of members who must be present at a properly noticed meeting for the board to conduct business legally. A walking quorum is the opposite: it reaches that same threshold of collective agreement through private, sequential conversations that were never noticed or opened to the public. One is a legitimate condition for doing business; the other is a mechanism for avoiding public scrutiny.
It depends on the state and the nature of the email. Many states permit a member to share information or forward a constituent request, but prohibit emails that solicit opinions, count votes or open a group discussion among a quorum of members. Some states treat email chains as meetings; others do not. Board members should consult their own state's open meeting law and, when in doubt, keep substantive deliberation inside noticed public meetings.
Penalties vary by state and can range from mild to severe. Milder consequences include voiding the action taken or being required to publish the proceedings of an improperly closed session. More serious consequences can include individual fines and, in some jurisdictions, criminal charges. Beyond formal penalties, even the appearance of a walking quorum can damage public trust in the board.
Keep substantive board business inside noticed public meetings, avoid discussing pending matters when a quorum gathers socially, and limit email and messaging to information-sharing rather than opinion-gathering. Establishing clear communication rules for members and using a meeting platform that keeps agendas, materials and votes inside a transparent, recorded workflow all reduce the risk of an inadvertent violation.
Ready to keep public board business open, recorded and defensible? Request a demo to see how Diligent Community supports transparent public governance.
