Voting over Multiple Meetings with Different Members Present

[Guest Greg B]

I'm part of an organization that is about to take an important vote and I question the method in which they're doing it. There are three meetings scheduled this weekend and each meeting willl have different members present. They want to vote on the budget for 2012 and accumulate ballots from all three meetings for the final tally.

Does this violate the definition of a "meeting" under Robert's Rules? What would happen, for example, if an amendment to the motion is made at the third meeting? Are the votes taken in the previous two meetings now void? Please help. Thank you.

[Trina]

Take a look at this article:

http://www.aipparl.o...iftMeetings.pdf

Also, this earlier thread

And, if you search this forum for "shift meetings" some other relevant threads will pop up.

You're right, of course, that it isn't practical to have the third meeting amend the motion, after the first two meetings have already voted on the motion in a different form.

[J. J.]

I'm part of an organization that is about to take an important vote and I question the method in which they're doing it. There are three meetings scheduled this weekend and each meeting willl have different members present. They want to vote on the budget for 2012 and accumulate ballots from all three meetings for the final tally.

Does this violate the definition of a "meeting" under Robert's Rules? What would happen, for example, if an amendment to the motion is made at the third meeting? Are the votes taken in the previous two meetings now void? Please help. Thank you.

If they are separate meetings, and neither the bylaws nor a special rule permits you to vote at the third meeting, it will be out of order and null and void if adopted (p. 251, e). It would be possible at an adjourned meeting. The second or third meeting could not amend the motion.

[Guest Greg B]

So to be clear: When the bylaws do not define "shift voting" and is silent on the matter, this type of voting is out of order and never allowed?

[J. J.]

So to be clear: When the bylaws do not define "shift voting" and is silent on the matter, this type of voting is out of order and never allowed?

If these are three separate meetings, as opposed to adjournments of one meeting, yes, if done in advance. Because you have not indicated that these are separate meetings, maybe not.

If this all one meeting, adjourning from day to day, a 2/3 vote could set the polling times. The motion would have to be "put" prior to the polls opening.

I'd suggest you read the section in the quoted article on "divided meetings."

[J. J.]

Basically, if this one meeting, a single session lasting over three days, which is quite possible, this can be done. It would require a 2/3 vote, because you are closing the polls (p. 248, ll. 11-12).

[Guest Greg B]

My apologies for not being clear.

Some more background: this is a church with three services (1 Saturday evening and 2 Sunday morning). Many members are not happy with the budget proposal. But with the leadership trying to take the vote at the end of each service, they believe that they'll have a better chance of the budget proposal passing. Moreover, the church constitution and bylaws are silent on "shift meetings" ... no provision for this is defined.

This seems to violate the definition of "meeting": "A single official gathering of the members of an organization in one room, with a quorum present to transact business." Therefore, can we use Robert's Rules to raise a point of order and cancel this vote thus forcing the church to call a single meeting to vote on the 2012 budget?

[J. J.]

My apologies for not being clear.

Some more background: this is a church with three services (1 Saturday evening and 2 Sunday morning). Many members are not happy with the budget proposal. But with the leadership trying to take the vote at the end of each service, they believe that they'll have a better chance of the budget proposal passing. Moreover, the church constitution and bylaws are silent on "shift meetings" ... no provision for this is defined.

This seems to violate the definition of "meeting": "A single official gathering of the members of an organization in one room, with a quorum present to transact business." Therefore, can we use Robert's Rules to raise a point of order and cancel this vote thus forcing the church to call a single meeting to vote on the 2012 budget?

If second and third meetings are just a continuation of the first meeting, it is in order. It would require a 2/3 vote That does not have to be in the bylaws.

If these are three separate sessions, it would be necessary to establish this in the bylaws or with a special rule.

You still have not told us if these are sessions or three meetings within one session. Was notice required?

[Guest Greg B]

These meeting are NOT sessions. There is NO continuation of one meeting to the next. These are 3 distinct meetings, with no members being present at any of the other meetings.

You might be able to say that they are 3 meetings within one session, and notice was required and given. However, at an informal Q&A a few days ago, the leadership did acknowledge that amendments proposed at either the second or third meeting might pose problems, and promptly change the subject.

[J. J.]

These meeting are NOT sessions. There is NO continuation of one meeting to the next. These are 3 distinct meetings, with no members being present at any of the other meetings.

You might be able to say that they are 3 meetings within one session, and notice was required and given. However, at an informal Q&A a few days ago, the leadership did acknowledge that amendments proposed at either the second or third meeting might pose problems, and promptly change the subject.

The change in membership has no bearing on the question.

Do meetings require notice according to your bylaws?

[J. J.]

These meeting are NOT sessions. There is NO continuation of one meeting to the next. These are 3 distinct meetings, with no members being present at any of the other meetings.

You might be able to say that they are 3 meetings within one session, and notice was required and given. However, at an informal Q&A a few days ago, the leadership did acknowledge that amendments proposed at either the second or third meeting might pose problems, and promptly change the subject.

If these are three meetings in one session, it is permitted, but will require a 2/3 vote.

[Guest Edgar]

But with the leadership trying to take the vote at the end of each service, they believe that they'll have a better chance of the budget proposal passing.

The polls can be open for voting at each of the three services without there being three separate meetings. But the results of the voting would have to be formally announced at a meeting. Needless to say, anything being voted on this way would have to be "fixed" in advance

[Bruce Lages]

While you say that "These are 3 distinct meetings, with no members being present at any of the other meetings", can you be certain that members would not attend more than one service, and therefore possibly vote more than once? I'm not sure how you would stop a member from attending more than one service, which means that you should consider procedures to insure that a member can not vote multiple times.

[Guest Greg B]

I thought there would be an easy answer. Yes or no.

Picture if you will a church with 3 services. At the end of each service, they are going to call a meeting to order to vote on the budget. The budget motion is not fixed. They are trusting that a person will not vote more than once. Motions to amend will be allowed. There are no provisions in the bylaws defining shift meetings.

The vote is by ballot and after the 3rd service all ballots will be counted.

Is this out of order with Robert's Rules?

[Guest Edgar]

At the end of each service, they are going to call a meeting to order to vote on the budget.

You can avoid the whole "meeting" problem simply by casting ballots outside the context of a meeting. In other words, you don't need to hold a meeting just to have people put a piece of paper in a box.

[Trina]

I thought there would be an easy answer. Yes or no.

Picture if you will a church with 3 services. At the end of each service, they are going to call a meeting to order to vote on the budget. The budget motion is not fixed. They are trusting that a person will not vote more than once. Motions to amend will be allowed. There are no provisions in the bylaws defining shift meetings.

The vote is by ballot and after the 3rd service all ballots will be counted.

Is this out of order with Robert's Rules?

Well, that's loopy (to use a technical term). Who is 'they' (i.e. who has decreed that the meeting and the voting will be done in this way)? I think you are looking for the proper way to oppose this process -- is that accurate?

[Guest Greg B]

I'm not asking for an alternative method to vote. This is how church leadership IS going to do it. I need to know if it's proper or not.

[Trina]

You can avoid the whole "meeting" problem simply by casting ballots outside the context of a meeting. In other words, you don't need to hold a meeting just to have people put a piece of paper in a box.

Yes, but who imposes this on the membership at this late date, if the membership doesn't get together at a (one(1)) meeting, and decide, at a meeting, to do the balloting this way?

[Guest Edgar]

I'm not asking for an alternative method to vote. This is how church leadership IS going to do it. I need to know if it's proper or not.

Okay. As you describe it, it's not.

And having an alternative process to propose just might help your case.

[Guest Greg B]

Trina: Who does this to the congregation? The kind of leadership that doesn't call quarterly business meetings even though quarterly meetings are required by the church's bylaws. The leadership at this church is a bit out of control. (In the opinion of many members, but of course, not all.)

Edgar: Thank you. That's what I thought.

[J. J.]

If these are 3 meetings in the same session, the assembly may, by a 2/3 vote, at the first meeting, set a time for the polls to reopen and close (at the second meeting), and a time to reopen and reclose the polls again (at the third meeting). Sessions can stop and restart, multiple times (see pp. 93-94).

[Guest Greg B]

J.J. : These meetings are not sessions. "A session is a series of connected meetings held by a group and devoted to a single order of business or program. Each meeting in a session is scheduled to continue business from the point where it left off in the preceding meeting."

There distinct meetings.

[J. J.]

Greg, you said:

You might be able to say that they are 3 meetings within one session, and notice was required and given. However, at an informal Q&A a few days ago, the leadership did acknowledge that amendments proposed at either the second or third meeting might pose problems, and promptly change the subject.

Then you said:

J.J. : These meetings are not sessions. "A session is a series of connected meetings held by a group and devoted to a single order of business or program. Each meeting in a session is scheduled to continue business from the point where it left off in the preceding meeting."

There distinct meetings.

Since you are not clear on this point, your question cannot be answered.

[Trina]

I'm going to look at it this way:

Assuming that any/all members are welcome to show up at the first meeting (the meeting after the first service), and that necessary notice has been given to all members, then debate and amendment could take place at that first meeting, and at the close of debate the motion (passing the budget) would be in its final form. The members could vote, as J.J. described, to open and close the polls mutliple times. However, it does not sound like this is the situation you face, especially as you appear certain that the plan is to have three independent meetings, each with power of debate and amendment, and then to combine votes from the three meetings. That just makes no sense from a parliamentary point of view. Any chance of getting most of the members to show up at the first meeting, and just doing things properly? Or are you primarily looking for ways to challenge the improper procedure which the 'leadership' is trying to impose upon the membership?

edited to add:

I guess my suggestion about just using the first scheduled meeting to complete the business would have notice problems at this point -- not much time between now and the weekend to tell all the members to come to a single meeting if they want to participate in the debate and potential amendment of the budget...

[Josh Martin]

Since you are not clear on this point, your question cannot be answered.

I think I'm going to give more weight to his last answer, since it's the answer he gave after you explained more clearly what a session was. Which would mean that the method of voting proposed is not proper.