Meeting not called to order

[Guest bikergirl]

In a church business meeting, the moderator failed to the meeting to order in the 1st service of the church.  There was a motion voted upon and approved.  This oversight was noted and the in the second and third service the meeting was called to order.  The motion was voted and approved in both of those services as well.  

 

My question is, should the motion be revoted in the first service due to this oversight in not officially stating the church had been called to order?  If so, how do you go about doing that?

[Richard Brown]

Although a meeting should be "called to order", it is not a critical step.  If the assembly proceeds to conduct business without objection, the failure of the chairman to have said, "The meeting will come to order" is considered waived.  Failure to call the meeting to order would not render the business conducted at that meeting void.

 

If the meeting was properly called and a quorum was present, it was a valid meeting.

 

Edited to add:  A similar situation would exist if the chairman failed to say, at the end of the meeting, that "The meeting is adjourned".  If he says something like, "well I guess we covered everything" or "thank you all for coming"... or even if he says nothing.... and everyone leaves and goes home, the meeting is definitely adjourned notwithstanding the failure of the chairman to have declared it adjourned.

[Transpower]

Assuming there was a quorum, and assuming the usual order of business was followed, I see no problem here.  I am reasoning by analogy--e.g., if a motion is not seconded, but discussion proceeds, then the motion is assumed to have been seconded; similarly in your case--since the meeting proceeded, the lack of a call to order is moot.  However, I cannot find anything in RONR to verify this.

[bikergirl]

In recording the minutes would I need to state the meeting call to order was waived in the first service and record those minutes separately from the other two sessions?  Everything else was done correctly but that one thing.  I typically I record one set of meeting minutes for all three sessions because it is the same in all three sessions.

 

Thank you very much for your responses.

[Richard Brown]

In recording the minutes would I need to state the meeting call to order was waived in the first service?

Someone may come along with a better answer, but I think I would avoid the issue by saying something to the effect that, "The meeting got underway with an opening prayer by Reverend Smith", etc.   Or "The meeting started at 10 am."  I don't see a need to point out that it was never "called to order". 

 

In recording the minutes would I need to state the meeting call to order was waived in the first service and record those minutes separately from the other two sessions?  Everything else was done correctly but that one thing.  I typically I record one set of meeting minutes for all three sessions because it is the same in all three sessions.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by your use of the terms "services" (in your opening post) and meetings and sessions.   You are using some non-standard parliamentary terms.  Are these three meetings taking place on the same day? 

 

In parliamentary lingo, a session can consist of one or more days and can have several meetings.   A meeting is a single gathering.  People often confuse the two terms.  For example, an annual meeting which is one session may last all day, but consist of two meetings:  the morning meeting and the afternoon meeting.   However, people often mistakenly refer to the morning "session" and the afternoon "session".  That is incorrect.  At a convention lasting several days, minutes are usually kept separately for each day's proceedings.  I'm not sure what is taking place in your situation.

[George Mervosh]

Richard, this seems very much like a union shift meeting where they conduct more than one meeting with the same order of business.  You might want to look up J.J.'s article on the subject on the AIP website.

 

I would suggest, as Richard did, bikergirl, that you DO note the time the first meeting started even if it wasn't called to order properly, which I think is a crucial step, but not one that would invalidate anything.

[bikergirl]

Thank you.  I am sorry that I switched between terms.  It was three services at our church where the vote was taken three separate times on the same motion.  This occurred all in one day at the end of all the three services to ensure that all members were given the opportunity to vote.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

As noted by others, not having a meeting "called to order" does not affect the validity of that meeting.

 

I think what is being noted in the first paragraph of Post #6 is that having three separate assemblies deciding on the same item of business with a vote in three separate meetings is not a situation described in RONR. Hopefully your church will have detailed rules on conducting meetings in such a specialized setting.

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . this seems very much like a union shift meeting where they conduct more than one meeting with the same order of business.

 

I'm not even sure these were meetings. It looks like only voting took place (i.e. no debate). And only on one motion (i.e. no order of business). So it seems more akin to the polls being open three times, the results to be announced at the next (real) meeting.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Edgar Guest may be on to something; at least I see nothing to refute it.

 

I am concerned, though, with this meeting (or, per Mr. Guest's suspicion, this polling) occurring after a religious service had just ended, that some members might have wandered out, unaware that a meeting, or vote, was going to be held.

[Edgar Guest]

I am concerned, though, with this meeting (or, per Mr. Guest's suspicion, this polling) occurring after a religious service had just ended, that some members might have wandered out, unaware that a meeting, or vote, was going to be held.

 

I would imagine the voting took place at the end of the services, before anyone left, not after the end of the services, after some had left (unless, of course, some checked out during the final hymn), Perhaps the moderator said something like, "Don't forget to vote on your way out" (assuming a ballot vote)..

 

In any event, if this was just voting, the "problem" of not having called the "meeting" to order is resolved. .

[Hieu H. Huynh]

In any event, if this was just voting, the "problem" of not having called the "meeting" to order is resolved. .

 

And the minutes?

[Edgar Guest]

And the minutes?

 

No meetings; no minutes. The services were just "polling places".

 

Of course this is speculation.