Voting on a motion without proper representation of group affected

[Guest Troy]

We recently had a business meeting where a motion was made that affected primarily a specific group of people who were not in the meeting. While we had a quorum, this "subgroup" was not represented. The motion was not on the agenda, so they had no idea it was coming in order to make arrangements to attend. They were actually present but outside the meeting preparing for an event to follow the business meeting. Can I rightly nullify the vote based on a lack of representation of a principally affected group?

[jstackpo]

Was the "subgroup" membership notified of the business meeting at all?  If "Yes", then it is the subgroups problem -- one of the requirements laid on a member is to show up for meetings. You cannot nullify a vote because some members don't show up at a meeting, The presence or absence of a particular item on an agenda makes no difference, unless you have a rule REQUIRING advance notice of all business to come up in a meeting.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Dr. Stackpole. If enough members are unhappy with the adopted motion, it may be rescinded or amended at a future meeting. Note that a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted has a special vote requirement if previous notice is not given.

Edited January 12, 2019 at 12:31 PM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction

[Troy2207]

You make valid points. I have no doubt you are correct regarding the "letter of the law" regarding this matter. However, the purpose of quorum is to make sure of adequate representation. Therefore, since a principle group affected was not represented nor aware of the motion, does it not appear that the "spirit of the law" was broken? If so, when would the "spirit of the law" override the "letter of the law" or is there no room for that in Roberts Rules of Order?

[Richard Brown]

4 minutes ago, Troy2207 said:

Therefore, since a principle group affected was not represented nor aware of the motion, does it not appear that the "spirit of the law" was broken? If so, when would the "spirit of the law" override the "letter of the law"

No. We refer to it colloquially as "you snooze, you lose". Anything can happen when you are not in the meeting room or not paying attention.

If what was done is egregious enough and if there is fairly obviously enough support to rescnd it, the motion can be rescinded at the next meeting. As an alternative, a special meeting can be called for the purpose of considering a motion to rescind the previously adopted motion. 

[Troy2207]

Thanks so much for your help!!

[Richard Brown]

Troy, was a quorum actually present in the meeting room at the time this motion was adopted? Members who are outside in the hallway are not present for Quorum purposes.

[Joshua Katz]

3 hours ago, Troy2207 said:

You make valid points. I have no doubt you are correct regarding the "letter of the law" regarding this matter. However, the purpose of quorum is to make sure of adequate representation. Therefore, since a principle group affected was not represented nor aware of the motion, does it not appear that the "spirit of the law" was broken? If so, when would the "spirit of the law" override the "letter of the law" or is there no room for that in Roberts Rules of Order?

This would permit a "subgroup," however defined, which is not a majority, to prevent an action from being taken by the simple expedient of not showing up. If your organization is concerned about the issue you raise, it can modify its quorum requirements (although it's probably a bad idea) if the "subgroup" is definable enough. But absent such a rule, you (presumably as presiding officer or some other officer) are not free to overturn the results of a majority decision because you believe some group was not represented.

[Chris Harrison]

Agreeing with the "you snooze you lose" principle if the decision of the group that is in the meeting is not representative of the assembly's wishes you may want to check out Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes (RONR pp. 332-335) for future cases (it is too late to use this now).