Special Meeting

[curtijoh]

We just called and had a special voters meeting in our church.  There was no agenda as the meeting had one purpose:  to vote on permission to proceed with a building expansion.  The meeting was called and presented to the congregation two weeks ahead of time according to our constitution.  During the meeting, a member made a motion to reintroduce adult bible study on Sundays (its a long story, but it had been eliminated as part of a larger strategy).  I was going to not allow the motion because it wasn't why the special meeting was called.  I let the motion go and it was voted on and passed (As President of the Council we are not in favor of this move...just so you know where I stand).  Am I correct that Roberts Rules would say that this motion should NOT have been allowed to be introduced?  Now that it was and voted on, what would Roberts say I should do?  

[Guest Edgar]

Am I correct that Roberts Rules would say that this motion should NOT have been allowed to be introduced?

 

Yes, you should have ruled the motion out of order.

 

Now that it was and voted on, what would Roberts say I should do?

You should probably hope that no one raises a point of order to the effect that the motion was out of order. If they do, you should rule the point of order well taken. Just so you don't make the same mistake twice.

[Josh Martin]

Am I correct that Roberts Rules would say that this motion should NOT have been allowed to be introduced?

 

Yes.

 

Now that it was and voted on, what would Roberts say I should do?  

 

At the next meeting, you should rule that the motion is null and void.

 

You should probably hope that no one raises a point of order to the effect that the motion was out of order. If they do, you should rule the point of order well taken. Just so you don't make the same mistake twice.

 

Why not correct the error on his own initiative? This is a continuing breach.

[Guest Edgar]

Why not correct the error on his own initiative? This is a continuing breach.

 

Yes, it's a continuing breach. And it appears he knew the motion was out of order when he "let it go". So if he want's to raise the point of order himself he'd better be prepared to explain his earlier decision. If someone else raises the point of order he could at least save face by pretending he didn't know what he was doing.

[Josh Martin]

Yes, it's a continuing breach. And it appears he knew the motion was out of order when he "let it go". So if he want's to raise the point of order himself he'd better be prepared to explain his earlier decision. If someone else raises the point of order he could at least save face by pretending he didn't know what he was doing.

 

I'd rather admit to making a mistake than look like I don't know what I'm doing, but I suppose it's ultimately up to the OP.

[curtijoh]

Yes, a humbling experience to say the least.  It was a contentious meeting and I ultimately think that I perhaps made the appropriate decision to not incite a riot (an exaggeration) so that we could move on to the business at hand, which WAS approved.  However, I know now that it was inappropriate to allow the motion to be made.  Next time, I will admit I made a mistake and will not do so again.  I appreciate the feedback. (BTW I grew up in St. Paul,  Josh)