Ambush a general meeting with unexpected motions?

[Guest Phil]

Our school Parent Advisory Council has as members every parent, but there is no formal membership list. General meetings (monthly) are sparsely attended, often the executive committee plus 1 or 2 members, sometimes as many as 10. Out of several hundred. So it only takes a handful of members to show up together to spring and then pass resolutions (in particular, directing the spending of funds raised) which favour personal preferences and which may not necessarily be in the best interests of the organisation (and yes I appreciate that's very subjective).

We have a track record of what I personally consider rash decisions made on the night with insufficient information and no consultation, which might illuminate the debate. Calls to delay the motion for due consideration and opportunity for consultation go unheeded.

I appreciate the Chair cannot halt a vote just on a whim, but is there any authority in Roberts' Rules or elsewhere that can safeguard the Council against kneejerk decisions made with uninformed debate? The Executive might even consider a particular motion to be damaging, but nevertheless are their hands tied, and small cliques can continue to ambush the meetings with non-agenda resolutions?

Not enjoying my sour grapes.

[George Mervosh]

If you can't garner a majority vote to postpone the  motion or send it to a committee for further study, you won't be getting the 2/3 vote necessary to Object to the Consideration of a Question, so unless the motion violates the bylaws the only other way to get what you want is to make sure enough like minded members attend. 

Edited February 26, 2018 at 08:35 PM by George Mervosh
Spelling. Ugh.

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Guest Phil said:

So it only takes a handful of members to show up together to spring and then pass resolutions (in particular, directing the spending of funds raised) which favour personal preferences and which may not necessarily be in the best interests of the organisation (and yes I appreciate that's very subjective).

What does the quorum provision say?

Anyway, members who are concerned about such an outcome have an option open to them: showing up to meetings.

[Guest Phil]

"The voting members present at any duly called general meeting shall constitute a quorum."

Thank you both, and you have understood the issue. The problematic resolutions are those resolved in the absence of notice, and getting a largely uninterested membership to show up 'just in case' there is significant business not included in the meeting notice is a challenge. 

I suppose in the end, a membership which doesn't care, gets what it deserves.

[Joshua Katz]

3 minutes ago, Guest Phil said:

"The voting members present at any duly called general meeting shall constitute a quorum."

 

Well, they might consider changing this.

 

3 minutes ago, Guest Phil said:

I suppose in the end, a membership which doesn't care, gets what it deserves.

That's what I think.

[Shmuel Gerber]

2 hours ago, Guest Phil said:

I appreciate the Chair cannot halt a vote just on a whim, but is there any authority in Roberts' Rules or elsewhere that can safeguard the Council against kneejerk decisions made with uninformed debate? The Executive might even consider a particular motion to be damaging, but nevertheless are their hands tied, and small cliques can continue to ambush the meetings with non-agenda resolutions?

In addition to raising the quorum requirement, the Council could, for example, adopt a special rule of order limiting all business at regular meetings to what has been specified in the notice, or to require a two-thirds vote for all main motions (other than those of a procedural nature that affect only the particular meeting or a particular item of business) for which no notice has been given.

[Guest Phil]

Thank you for your help.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

As others have pointed out, if you feel the decisions being taken are unrepresentative of your group, then you need to amend your bylaws to establish a real quorum. Otherwise, what you are complaining about is the democratic process. You will find no protection for the benevolent dictator in the pages of RONR.

[Joshua Katz]

Or, I suppose, study up on "reconsider and enter in the minutes," p. 332 et. seq.

[Richard Brown]

On 2/26/2018 at 8:57 PM, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

As others have pointed out, if you feel the decisions being taken are unrepresentative of your group, then you need to amend your bylaws to establish a real quorum. Otherwise, what you are complaining about is the democratic process. You will find no protection for the benevolent dictator in the pages of RONR.

Or do as Shmuel Gerber suggested and adopt a special rule of order that any items of business for which previous notice has not been given require a supermajority vote, such as a two-thirds or three fourths vote,  for adoption. 

[George Mervosh]

On 3/3/2018 at 12:11 PM, Richard Brown said:

Or do as Shmuel Gerber suggested and adopt a special rule of order that any items of business for which previous notice has not been given require a supermajority vote, such as a two-thirds or three fourths vote,  for adoption. 

They better get some support outside of those showing up now, because the ones who are coming to the meetings now are not going to adopt a rule which restricts them..