“Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly applied the common-law rule to representative municipal bodies of limited membership in the absence of [a]ny language to the contrary in the relevant enabling statute.”
How later courts described this case
- “Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly applied the common-law rule to representative municipal bodies of limited membership in the absence of [a]ny language to the contrary in the relevant enabling statute.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERTS, Justice.
I agree with the majority that the affirmative votes of six members of the board of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority are necessary for the adoption of any resolution, and I join in the majority opinion. I write only to suggest an additional reason why this interpretation of section 18(a) of the Metropolitan Transportation Authorities Act of 1963 1
2 does not render surplusage the provision that a majority of the board shall constitute a quorum.®
Adoption of resolutions is not the only action by the board or proceeding before the board which requires a quorum. For example, section 18(a) further provides: “ [rjegular meetings of the board shall be held in the metropolitan area at least once in each calendar month except July or August . . ..” If a quorum is present, a regular meeting may be held, even though no resolution receives six affirmative votes. Thus the requirement *169 that a resolution receive six affirmative votes to be adopted does not deprive the quorum provision of independent significance.
. Act of August 14, 1983, P.L. 984, § 18(a), 66 P.S. § 2018(a) (Supp.1976).
. Id.