Walk Out on Motion

[slate12]

Is it appropriate for the Chair, along with other members, to walk out of a meeting after a motion is made and seconded, causing the meeting to abruptly end due to lack of quorum?

[Chris Harrison]

If a quorum is lost then no business can be validly conducted besides taking a recess, adjourning, setting up an Adjourned Meeting, or taking some measure to obtain a quorum. Of course, those people who pull such a stunt better realize that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

[Josh Martin]

Is it appropriate for the Chair, along with other members, to walk out of a meeting after a motion is made and seconded, causing the meeting to abruptly end due to lack of quorum?

No, although there's nothing you can really do to stop them. I would note, however, that losing quorum doesn't mean the meeting ends right away. The meeting continues, and the assembly still has several procedural options available to it, although it cannot conduct any substantial business. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 347-348 for more information.

One option, for instance would be to set up an adjourned meeting (a continuation of the current meeting), and then you can try and get as many supporters of the motion to show up as possible, so that the quorum-busting trick hopefully won't work again.

[David A Foulkes]

No, although there's nothing you can really do to stop them.

I suppose not, but if the chair was the President (or even perhaps other officer - VP?), wouldn't you at least suggest some sort of disciplinary action, even if only a motion to censure (at a later quorate meeting)? It sure seems like this sort of behavior should not be tolerated, of any chairperson. I'd think this borders on dereliction of duty, but maybe I'm just giving into a sense of appallment at this.

[Josh Martin]

I suppose not, but if the chair was the President (or even perhaps other officer - VP?), wouldn't you at least suggest some sort of disciplinary action, even if only a motion to censure (at a later quorate meeting)? It sure seems like this sort of behavior should not be tolerated, of any chairperson. I'd think this borders on dereliction of duty, but maybe I'm just giving into a sense of appallment at this.

The assembly is certainly free to consider disciplinary action against any or all of the members who were part of the "walk-out," if the assembly can manage to keep a quorum for that. I'd argue that this is dereliction of duty for the lot of them, although it is arguably worse for the President. The original poster should see RONR, 11th ed., Ch. XX if this is of interest (as well as FAQ #20 in the case of the President).

[Guest Edgar]

I'd argue that this is dereliction of duty for the lot of them . . .

I think that might be a tough sell. Maybe they all ate the same bean dip during recess.

[Josh Martin]

I think that might be a tough sell. Maybe they all ate the same bean dip during recess.

I concur that the charge would be very difficult to prove, as it would be hard to show that the members left the meeting specifically for the purpose of quorum-busting. My statement was based more on principle than on the practicality of actually charging the members.

[Sean Hunt]

One option, for instance would be to set up an adjourned meeting (a continuation of the current meeting), and then you can try and get as many supporters of the motion to show up as possible, so that the quorum-busting trick hopefully won't work again.

And the members who walked out about the adjourned meeting (or otherwise were present) have no right to notice of the adjourned meeting; although if this is taken to extremes, the consequences may be disastrous.

[Guest Edgar]

And the members who walked out about the adjourned meeting (or otherwise were present) have no right to notice of the adjourned meeting; although if this is taken to extremes, the consequences may be disastrous.

Huh?

[Trina]

Huh?

Is the 'huh' for the no notice part, or for the disastrous consequences part?

[Guest Edgar]

Is the 'huh' for the no notice part, or for the disastrous consequences part?

The "Huh?" is for "the members who walked out about the adjourned meeting (or otherwise were present)" part.

[David A Foulkes]

The "Huh?" is for "the members who walked out about the adjourned meeting (or otherwise were present)" part.

I gather the reference was to p. 244 ll. 21-23 (RONR 11) - "Unlike a special meeting, an adjourned meeting does not require notice, although it is desirable to give such notice if feasible."

I'm still intrigued by the disastrous consequences that may ensue, though.

[Rev Ed]

I find it rather odd the the Chair, who is elected/appointed to run a meeting to just walk out. However, the remaining members could have elected a chair pro tem, set a date for the adjourned meeting, and then end the first meeting.

At the same time, at the next meeting, the Board could potentially ask the Chair why he left the meeting. If a satisfactory answer is not forthcoming, then a Committee could be set up to determine what, if any, disciplinary actions should be taken.

[Guest Edgar]

At the same time, at the next meeting, the Board could potentially ask the Chair why he left the meeting.

There's a board?

[Gary Novosielski]

Is the 'huh' for the no notice part, or for the disastrous consequences part?

Well, anything, taken to extremes, can have disastrous consequences. Even, arguably, moderation.

[Josh Martin]

At the same time, at the next meeting, the Board could potentially ask the Chair why he left the meeting.

There is nothing in the original post to suggest that this is a board.

If a satisfactory answer is not forthcoming, then a Committee could be set up to determine what, if any, disciplinary actions should be taken.

Well, let's just let the original poster refer to his Bylaws, or Ch. XX of RONR if the Bylaws are silent. If, for instance, a trial is required, there's quite a bit more to it than what you have described (although an investigative committee is one of the steps in the process).