A colleague told me this story: A group tried very hard to defeat a motion, but realized that its efforts were not going to succeed. As its last attempt to stop the motion from being adopted, the group walked out of the meeting and the quorum was lost. My colleague’s question was: Is it fair for such a group to resist the wishes of the majority in this way?

I started answering his question by addressing the technical aspects: A quorum is the number of voting members who must be present when a vote is taken. In the absence of a quorum, the only actions that can be taken are to recess, take measures to obtain a quorum (e.g.: wait for people to return to the meeting), adjourn, or schedule a continued meeting (otherwise referred to as "an adjourned meeting").

With this in mind, if voting members leave a meeting and the quorum is lost, no substantive decisions can be made until the quorum is restored. Unless the applicable legislation or bylaws prohibit the use of rules for strategic purposes, members can indeed delay or stop the adoption of a motion, by walking out of the meeting in sufficient numbers.

From a non-technical angle, there is a problem when members use rules strategically to stop action from being taken, especially when this is done to promote narrow interests at the expense of the entire organization. This problem cannot be addressed effectively by reducing the quorum size or by adding rules to prevent the abuse, but by examining its root causes.

A common root cause of strategic use of rules is that the group’s culture is too adversarial, with a majority always fighting a minority. In a narrow sense, this pre-occupation with “beating the opposition” means that one side wins and another side loses. In a broader sense, the ultimate loser may be the community that the group serves. With substantial efforts directed at internal battles, less attention is available to be given to serving broad community interests.

An adversarial setting means that members often look for ways to promote themselves and undermine their opponents. Votes may be pre-determined before anyone begins to speak at a meeting. Listening is virtually non-existent. Those who witness such a process cannot be faulted for developing cynicism and contempt towards the governing body and its practices.

To address this dysfunction, the group should shift its attention from the quorum issue, and enter serious discussions about its mission and strategic goals, and how to build a sense of collaboration and teamwork, so the organization's broader interests can properly be served.

.