Voting over Multiple Meetings with Different Members Present

[J. J.]

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.

Well, did each meeting have separate notice? Does each have a separate business?

[Guest Greg B]

Thanks, Josh for the final answer.

Trina: The objective of leadership is to pass a budget that many members do not agree with. The first service is Saturday night and only 50 people (out of 600) come to that service. Furthermore, leadership has dug in their heals and will NOT change the vote procedures as they now stand. We tried. So, we'll simply use correct parlamentary rules, raise a point of order on Saturday and if the chairman rules the point invalid, well have to appeal from the decision of the chair.

If this succeeds, then the church have to schedule a single meeting to discuss and vote on the budget.

Thank you, everyone for your outstanding information!

[J. J.]

Thanks, Josh for the final answer.

Trina: The objective of leadership is to pass a budget that many members do not agree with. The first service is Saturday night and only 50 people (out of 600) come to that service. Furthermore, leadership has dug in their heals and will NOT change the vote procedures as they now stand. We tried. So, we'll simply use correct parlamentary rules, raise a point of order on Saturday and if the chairman rules the point invalid, well have to appeal from the decision of the chair.

If this succeeds, then the church have to schedule a single meeting to discuss and vote on the budget.

Thank you, everyone for your outstanding information!

Josh's answer may not be final.

Ah, even if this is one session, you still need a 2/3 vote to set the close reopening the poll pattern.

[Trina]

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).

OK, but even if this were a case of 3 meetings in one session (and Greg B. seems increasingly clear that that isn't the case), that still wouldn't make it proper to reopen the question to debate and amendment once voting has started. That would mean that only the members who choose to come to the first meeting would have the opportunity to debate and potentially amend the budget.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think of a session as just being a very long meeting that happens to have one or more pauses inserted along the way. Once you mentally edit out the pauses, the long meeting should be properly conducted, following the same rules that would apply if all the business were being conducted at any other single meeting.

'Interruptions during the taking of a vote are permitted only before any member has actually voted, unless, as sometimes occurs in ballot voting, other business is being transacted during voting or tabulating.' (RONR 11th ed. p. 408 ll. 9-13, emphasis added). It seems clearly improper to me to resume consideration of the same business (namely debate and potential amendment of the budget at the second and third meetings) once the taking of the vote on the budget has started.

[Trina]

...

Trina: The objective of leadership is to pass a budget that many members do not agree with. The first service is Saturday night and only 50 people (out of 600) come to that service. Furthermore, leadership has dug in their heals and will NOT change the vote procedures as they now stand. We tried. So, we'll simply use correct parlamentary rules, raise a point of order on Saturday and if the chairman rules the point invalid, well have to appeal from the decision of the chair.

...

Exactly what point of order do you intend to raise? One problem, it appears to me, is that nothing is really askew yet at the first meeting -- the members debate, amend (maybe), and then vote, and adjourn the meeting. All in order. The problems start at the second meeting.

Also, if three meetings are scheduled, just raising a point of order at the first meeting may not be adequate. Let's assume you raise your point of order, the chair rules against it, and the decision of the chair is overturned by the assembly on appeal. Then what? Perhaps the next morning, the second meeting is called to order (as originally planned), and just goes ahead with its business. The fact that the 50 people at the Saturday night service caused an uproar may be dismissed, or not even mentioned. It seems to me that you would need people ready to raise a point of order at each of the planned meetings, not just the first one

How is quorum defined at each of these meetings? What vote (margin) is required to adopt the budget under your bylaws?

[Guest jhBQ24]

Hey Trina, your point is well taken. But knowing the situation as I do, if the assembly at the first service votes down the rule of the chair under the "appeal of the decision of the chair", they will at that point cancel the meetings currently scheduled following the Sunday morning services and be forced to schedule a single meeting at which the budget will be debated and voted on.

Here's the bottom line: First, John Martin stated clearly that this type of "shift voting" is not proper without bylaw definition, so the church leadership cannot legally take the vote in the way they are planning. Second, Robert's Rules are in place to help eliminate dictatorship and sadly, that's what the senior pastor of this church is moving towards and the congregation must stop. He's using this method of voting to get his way by including as many uninformed members to cast ballots as possible. So we're using RR to try and stop this vote adn allow a reschedule.

Finally, we haven't even discussed quorum. I believe the bylaws require 10% of the membership for a quorum and with 600 members, if only 50 attend the Saturday service, they won't even have a quorum.

I've passed all of this information to another person that is now going to plan their strategy for the weekend. I am now only an observer, as I am not even a member of the church but am a very interested party. There are far more issues at stake than what have been discussed here but know that this information might help to save a church that's struggling greatly. So again, thank you all!

[Guest Greg B]

Sorry, but Guest_jhBQ24 was me. I typed the security check in the name box.

[J. J.]

OK, but even if this were a case of 3 meetings in one session (and Greg B. seems increasingly clear that that isn't the case), that still wouldn't make it proper to reopen the question to debate and amendment once voting has started. That would mean that only the members who choose to come to the first meeting would have the opportunity to debate and potentially amend the budget.

No, once the question is put, at the first meeting, it would not longer be subject to amendment. In theory, the rules could be suspended to permit discussion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think of a session as just being a very long meeting that happens to have one or more pauses inserted along the way. Once you mentally edit out the pauses, the long meeting should be properly conducted, following the same rules that would apply if all the business were being conducted at any other single meeting.

Yes.

[J. J.]

Here's the bottom line: First, John Martin stated clearly that this type of "shift voting" is not proper without bylaw definition, so the church leadership cannot legally take the vote in the way they are planning. Second, Robert's Rules are in place to help eliminate dictatorship and sadly, that's what the senior pastor of this church is moving towards and the congregation must stop. He's using this method of voting to get his way by including as many uninformed members to cast ballots as possible. So we're using RR to try and stop this vote adn allow a reschedule.

This may not be a shift meeting, in the sense you use the term. It may be intended to be one meeting, with breaks. If so, it would be in order the close/reopen method. That would however require a 2/3 vote.

Finally, we haven't even discussed quorum. I believe the bylaws require 10% of the membership for a quorum and with 600 members, if only 50 attend the Saturday service, they won't even have a quorum.

I've passed all of this information to another person that is now going to plan their strategy for the weekend. I am now only an observer, as I am not even a member of the church but am a very interested party. There are far more issues at stake than what have been discussed here but know that this information might help to save a church that's struggling greatly. So again, thank you all!

You might find that strategy flawed.

It seems to be a fairly easy question if this is one or three separate sessions. If notice is required, was there notice of three separate meetings? Was there a separate agenda for each meeting? Does the first meeting adopt an agenda providing for these breaks in a meeting? If the answer is no, no and yes, respectively, you have one meeting with breaks.

[Josh Martin]

Thanks, Josh for the final answer.

As much as I appreciate the support, J. J. is the expert on this topic (he wrote the article on the subject which we usually refer people to), so if there is still doubt in his mind as to whether this is three meetings comprising one session or three separate sessions, I would not consider my answer to be final.

[David A Foulkes]

Regardless of whether this is one meeting or three, wouldn't one possible "work-around" here be to use Amend Something Previously Adopted at the second and third "meetings"? The voting threshold may rise to 2/3 if notice of the motion can't be properly given for those two "meetings", but at least it would avoid any question of parliamentary impropriety.

[Trina]

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.

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.

My guess is that the leadership at this church has never heard of 'sessions' or 'shift meetings', and has simply made plans that give no consideration to the membership's inherent right to debate and amend a motion prior to voting on it. If one assumes that the membership's job is confined to listening to a presentation, asking some questions, maybe making a few comments (positive or negative), and then voting 'yes' or 'no' on the motion as presented, then there's no logical problem with collecting votes over the course of three meetings. It may be a combination of simply not realizing that the membership has the right to modify the proposed budget, along with the thought that it will be more convenient for the membership this way (just stay a few minutes longer after you attend church -- no need to make a separate trip). Somewhere in the background may be the thought that the 'troublemakers' in the congregation will be less likely to influence other members if the members meet in groups rather than all getting together at once.

If the leadership actually acknowledged 'that amendments proposed at either the second or third meeting might pose problems' (no kidding!!), that's a clear indication that the leadership did not explicitly plan a three-meetings-in-one-session approach. If the people who planned and gave notice of the meetings weren't planning a multi-meeting session, why would one expect the general membership to have received proper notice of a multi-meeting session?

True, the membership itself could vote to close and re-open the polls multiple times (by means of the repeatedly mentioned two-thirds vote at the first meeting). However, going by what the original poster said, the first meeting is very likely to be inquorate. Furthermore, such a vote would restrict the rights of the members at the second and third meetings, who could well argue that the notice they received led them to believe they would attend a true meeting, with full rights to debate and amend.

One other point, which I don't remember seeing mentioned before in this thread, is the implication of the OP's comment about 'no members being present at any of the other meetings.' If there is active intent to prevent members from attending more than one meeting, that could lead to other problems. I'm not suggesting, of course, that anyone should be allowed to vote more than once. However, any member has a right to attend any meeting of an assembly of which he/she is a member. If several separate meetings are structured to be part of the same session, there is no proper way to restrict a member's attendance rights in this manner. I would suggest that those who intend to raise points of order be sure to show up at all three meetings. If they are denied admittance to the Sunday morning meeting, on the basis that, "you people were already here last night, and you're not allowed to attend again," that would be a violation that rises to the level of a continuing breach, and could be grounds for future points of order challenging this process, if that proves to be necessary.

Also, if there is nothing in place to ensure that each member can only vote once (I seem to remember that Greg B. said this was pretty much being left to the honor system), that's another flaw to keep in mind when challenging this process.

[Guest Greg B]

Trina, you're correct on so many points. I am also certain that the leadership has no idea what the definitions of a meeting, a session, or shift meetings are. Their only goal is to get this budget passed. At an informational meeting last weekend, they acknowledged the fact that an amendment to the budget, which might be passed at the second or third meeting, would present problems, but completely brushed that possiblity aside. They are playing very loose with the rules.

J.J., I also know that they really don't know much about Robert's Rules. That is a very evident fact.

Josh, it's not that I'm giving you all kinds of support, I just like your hair.

And here's my final word on the matter: The only thing that many members of the church would like is to have a single meeting duly called with proper notice so that they can debate and vote on the budget--at one meeting. Regarding who the "trouble makers" are, many would say that it is the church leadership trying to ram an unpopular budget down everyones' throats. Again, thank you. It's be a pleasure.

P.S. When I tell people that I bought a 360 page book on Robert's Rules and read it twice over the summer, I get some very interesting looks and more than one "you're such a nerd."

[J. J.]

Trina, you're correct on so many points. I am also certain that the leadership has no idea what the definitions of a meeting, a session, or shift meetings are. Their only goal is to get this budget passed. At an informational meeting last weekend, they acknowledged the fact that an amendment to the budget, which might be passed at the second or third meeting, would present problems, but completely brushed that possiblity aside. They are playing very loose with the rules.

J.J., I also know that they really don't know much about Robert's Rules. That is a very evident fact.

Josh, it's not that I'm giving you all kinds of support, I just like your hair.

And here's my final word on the matter: The only thing that many members of the church would like is to have a single meeting duly called with proper notice so that they can debate and vote on the budget--at one meeting. Regarding who the "trouble makers" are, many would say that it is the church leadership trying to ram an unpopular budget down everyones' throats. Again, thank you. It's be a pleasure.

P.S. When I tell people that I bought a 360 page book on Robert's Rules and read it twice over the summer, I get some very interesting looks and more than one "you're such a nerd."

The 10th edition of RONR is 643 pages. The 11th edition 670 pages. So I don't know what you are reading.

The church might be having one session. I'm sorry, but based on the information you have provided, it might very well be in order.

[Guest Edgar]

I'm sorry, but based on the information you have provided, it might very well be in order.

The chances that any of this is in order are extremely slim.

[J. J.]

The chances that any of this is in order are extremely slim.

Not really. Again, we do not know it this is three different meetings within one session or if these are three separate sessions.

A society could, if it chooses, hold one meeting over several days, adjourning until the next scheduled meeting; I have been in several. It can for a variety of reasons, including getting a more representative vote, permit the polls to be closed and reopened at points within this meeting. It would be up to initial meeting to set this up, and would require a 2/3 vote to close the polls (unless it is included in an agenda).

It could not, on the other hand, add votes from one separate session to votes in another separate session, unless the bylaws, or a special rule provide for that.

In the first case, if Greg does not approve of the process, he may convince a sufficient number of members to vote against the process, or to set one polling time at the third meeting.

In the second case, it would be subject to a Point of Order, and probably be a continuing breach.

There are simple ways of determining which it happening, i.e. was notice sent for three separate meetings? Has a proposed agenda been given showing that Saturday meeting will adjourn until the first meeting on Sunday? I'm troubled that these questions are unanswered, and would prefer not to assume which case is correct until those answers are provided. At that point, it should be clear.

[Trina]

Not really. Again, we do not know it this is three different meetings within one session or if these are three separate sessions.

A society could, if it chooses, hold one meeting over several days, adjourning until the next scheduled meeting; I have been in several. It can for a variety of reasons, including getting a more representative vote, permit the polls to be closed and reopened at points within this meeting. It would be up to initial meeting to set this up, and would require a 2/3 vote to close the polls (unless it is included in an agenda).

It could not, on the other hand, add votes from one separate session to votes in another separate session, unless the bylaws, or a special rule provide for that.

In the first case, if Greg does not approve of the process, he may convince a sufficient number of members to vote against the process, or to set one polling time at the third meeting.

In the second case, it would be subject to a Point of Order, and probably be a continuing breach.

There are simple ways of determining which it happening, i.e. was notice sent for three separate meetings? Has a proposed agenda been given showing that Saturday meeting will adjourn until the first meeting on Sunday? I'm troubled that these questions are unanswered, and would prefer not to assume which case is correct until those answers are provided. At that point, it should be clear.

It would be interesting to see the exact language of the announcement of the meetings. However, I think Greg B. would have noticed if there was any mention of each meeting adjourning to the following one.

Like Egar, I think the chances that the rules are being followed are low (just a guess about probabilities, not a certainty, based on the facts presented so far).

[Rev Ed]

How about this solution:

The Chairman calls the meeting to order after Saturday's service. Start voting, once everyone has vote and before the ballots are counted, have someone move to recess until after the first service on Sunday. On Sunday, the meeting is called to order again, more votes are taken, and a motion to recess until after the second service on Sunday. Then after the second service on Sunday the meeting is called back to order, the last votes collected, and a final tally occurs.

[J. J.]

It would be interesting to see the exact language of the announcement of the meetings. However, I think Greg B. would have noticed if there was any mention of each meeting adjourning to the following one.

Like Egar, I think the chances that the rules are being followed are low (just a guess about probabilities, not a certainty, based on the facts presented so far).

Greg has not mentioned it, and that will be the key. Even if there is notice for just the Saturday meeting, that meeting could set the times for the polls to close (2/3 vote) and schedule the adjourned meetings.

[Josh Martin]

Regardless of whether this is one meeting or three, wouldn't one possible "work-around" here be to use Amend Something Previously Adopted at the second and third "meetings"?

Well, assuming the first meeting adopts the budget, it would be in order for it to be amended at a later meeting, but that's quite different from combining the votes - nor do I think this is a highly desirable method, as the effect will be to give an undue amount of influence to the first meeting to adopt a budget (since it would take a 2/3 vote to amend it).

The only thing that many members of the church would like is to have a single meeting duly called with proper notice so that they can debate and vote on the budget--at one meeting.

If this statement is true, then it's really not that important whether the "leadership's" proposal is in order, since the assembly is under no obligation to follow it. I'd spend time studying up on Point of Order and Appeal and be ready to use them if the "leadership" attempts to force the voting procedure on the assembly.

P.S. When I tell people that I bought a 360 page book on Robert's Rules and read it twice over the summer, I get some very interesting looks and more than one "you're such a nerd."

What book, please? Many third-party guides to Robert's Rules get a number of important details wrong.

The Chairman calls the meeting to order after Saturday's service. Start voting, once everyone has vote and before the ballots are counted, have someone move to recess until after the first service on Sunday. On Sunday, the meeting is called to order again, more votes are taken, and a motion to recess until after the second service on Sunday. Then after the second service on Sunday the meeting is called back to order, the last votes collected, and a final tally occurs.

A Recess is for a much shorter time period. The appropriate motion would be to Adjourn (possibly combined with a motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn). Other than the nomenclature issues, this is basically the procedure J. J. has described, albeit more spread out. As noted, closing the polls requires a 2/3 vote. Of course, based on what Greg has said, it seems the assembly has no interest in such a procedure.

[Guest Greg B]

Josh, I can't help it...I have to respond one last time. The church might split over this budget and leadership has their heads in the sand. It's that serious. I schooled someone regarding Point of Order and Appeal a few days ago and asked that they do some additional study and practice.

Finally, I bought a Webster's RR book (recent pub) at B&N which, I'm learning, I probably should not have. I'll get the 11th that you've referenced here.

[David A Foulkes]

Finally, I bought a Webster's RR book (recent pub) at B&N which, I'm learning, I probably should not have. I'll get the 11th that you've referenced here.

For an additional paltry sum, you might also consider picking up (if available) Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised - In Brief, 2nd Edition. It's been updated to match RONR 11. It can be read in its entirety in a short span, maybe an hour or three, and offers good (albeit "brief") insight into many of the rules dealt with in more detail in RONR 11. It also includes page references to the 11th to refer to for more extensive understanding. It will provide you with a solid understanding of the basic principles of parliamentary procedure outlined in the Big Book. A great place to start.

[Guest Steven P]

Greetings, All:

Just be aware that this is similar to the way we submit our Church budget for approval. Prior to me becoming moderator, it had been traditional to move approval, debate, and amend the proposed budget at our November business meeting. The budget was then presented to Church at the end of each of the morning worship services the following Sunday.

As this was nowhere in our bylaws, and there was no motion to cease debate or fix the time to which adjourn, I proposed to our Bylaws committee to fix the process.

We now have this proceedure in our bylaws that allows us to adjourn with this motion before the assembly, and then be called to order for a vote only at each morning worship service the following Sunday.

[J. J.]

Greetings, All:

Just be aware that this is similar to the way we submit our Church budget for approval. Prior to me becoming moderator, it had been traditional to move approval, debate, and amend the proposed budget at our November business meeting. The budget was then presented to Church at the end of each of the morning worship services the following Sunday.

As this was nowhere in our bylaws, and there was no motion to cease debate or fix the time to which adjourn, I proposed to our Bylaws committee to fix the process.

We now have this proceedure in our bylaws that allows us to adjourn with this motion before the assembly, and then be called to order for a vote only at each morning worship service the following Sunday.

You didn't that in your bylaws. You could have established it by a special rule, or simply by adjourning until Sunday.