Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Vote Taken Without Motion, Second, Discussion


Guest Tammy G

Recommended Posts

Here's an interesting deal. A church congregation had been summons to a meeting to approve a construction project idea submitted by a local contractor. There was a fiasco about the percentage required to declare voter approval. After a heated executive session of the church council, with all members present, and a clearly lopsided vote advantage for the "Rogue Group" the vote to approve percentage went from 65 to 51. Then the council emerges from their executive session and the president says pass out the ballots and people, "Vote for one thing on the list". So the "Rogue Group" hands out the ballots, collects them, counts them and the approval by one vote went to the Rogue Group's desired result. Stunned in amazement, we who come from a Robert's Rules of Order background had noted to ourselves that no motion was made, no second was called for, no discussion on the motion was had...so we held our breath knowing that Robert's Rules of Order clearly were not within the heads of the Rogue Group. So, conveniently, we contend that the 'vote taken' is about as illegitimate as it gets, i.e. no motion to vote on anything was before the congregation. Hence, how would you all tactfully explain to the Rogue Group the errors of their ways? Your thought would be greatly appreciated!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting deal. A church congregation had been summons to a meeting to approve a construction project idea submitted by a local contractor. There was a fiasco about the percentage required to declare voter approval. After a heated executive session of the church council, with all members present, and a clearly lopsided vote advantage for the "Rogue Group" the vote to approve percentage went from 65 to 51. Then the council emerges from their executive session and the president says pass out the ballots and people, "Vote for one thing on the list". So the "Rogue Group" hands out the ballots, collects them, counts them and the approval by one vote went to the Rogue Group's desired result. Stunned in amazement, we who come from a Robert's Rules of Order background had noted to ourselves that no motion was made, no second was called for, no discussion on the motion was had...so we held our breath knowing that Robert's Rules of Order clearly were not within the heads of the Rogue Group. So, conveniently, we contend that the 'vote taken' is about as illegitimate as it gets, i.e. no motion to vote on anything was before the congregation. Hence, how would you all tactfully explain to the Rogue Group the errors of their ways? Your thought would be greatly appreciated!

A point of order should have been raised at the time. It's unclear to me what happened. Are you really saying that members voted with no idea what the motion was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, a vote was taken without putting a motion on the floor, therefore no second, no discussion. My point is, "No motion set forth = a vote was out of order". The president was so into the railroading of the issue/vote that he totally was off base to say to the congregation, "Vote". I agree that a point of order would have been the appropriate thing to have done, but I will also tell you they would have not known what to do with a point of order. This is a classic of not knowing RONR, but insisting they know it all. My thought is the vote taken was done in error. One can't reconsider, rescind or annul because the basic step of a 'motion' was ignored. If the silence of not raising 'point of order' is valid, then a rescind/annul is the motion of choice to use to take the question back up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, a vote was taken without putting a motion on the floor, therefore no second, no discussion. My point is, "No motion set forth = a vote was out of order". The president was so into the railroading of the issue/vote that he totally was off base to say to the congregation, "Vote". I agree that a point of order would have been the appropriate thing to have done, but I will also tell you they would have not known what to do with a point of order. This is a classic of not knowing RONR, but insisting they know it all. My thought is the vote taken was done in error. One can't reconsider, rescind or annul because the basic step of a 'motion' was ignored. If the silence of not raising 'point of order' is valid, then a rescind/annul is the motion of choice to use to take the question back up?

A motion can be adopted without the formal process of making the motion, and even if it was done improperly, if the members knew what their votes meant, the vote counts and the will of the assembly was served. However, if they didn't know the effect of their votes, I'm baffled as to why they proceeded to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1st post clearly states the purpose of the meeting/vote. (to approve a construction project). It even says they were "summoned" for that purpose, perhaps indicating the topic was in the call of the meeting. There was clearly discussion about the % needed to pass (what?). If there was no knowledge of what was being voted on, what was the discussion about? As Tim notes, if the voters knew what they were voting on (and it seems to me they did) then the vote should stand.

But by the same token, I cannot see why a motion to rescind (assuming the project isn't a done deal) cannot be pursued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite line from Robert..."Silence is acquiescence."

What caught my attention in your statement was,

Stunned in amazement, we who come from a Robert's Rules of Order background had noted to ourselves that no motion was made, no second was called for, no discussion on the motion was had...so we held our breath knowing that Robert's Rules of Order clearly were not within the heads of the Rogue Group.

Just for clarification, does your church use Robert's Rules as its meeting order guidelines? The above quoted section made me think differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite line from Robert..."Silence is acquiescence."

A line from Robert who?

What caught my attention in your statement was,

["Stunned in amazement ..."]

My impression from what Tammy G., the Original Poster, wrote, was that she and her allies felt that the proceedings were so hopelessly garbled and improper as to be invalid. So they expected -- mistakenly, as it possibly turns out -- that everything will have to be done over, the right way. Mr. Wynn and The ATC have presented a compelling argument that what was done will stand, although I don't think anyone will be surprised if there is ongoing dispute and confusion about what exactly was enacted.

Just for clarification, does your church use Robert's Rules as its meeting order guidelines? The above quoted section made me think differently.

The original post suggests to me that using Robert's Rules is a haphazardly-aspired goal of the congregation, and it is not unlikely that Robert's Rules is the official parliamentary authority (not guidelines).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...