Objections to a vote one week after the vote has taken place

[Guest Lori Boller]

Our church held a congregational vote to call a new pastor.  The vote had been posted for more than 2 weeks.  At the time of the vote, the council president announced that we would be taking the vote, then passed out ballots to all present voting members.  48 yes, 2 no.

The next week each council member found a letter in their mailbox objecting that Robert's Rules were not followed and that a re-vote must be done. Does the objection need to be addressed at the time of the meeting?

[jstackpo]

Without knowing the nature of the rule claimed to have been violated, I really can't say much of anything.

Chances are, however, that it is too late to raise any rule violation objections  --  AKA "points of order"  --  now. See RONR p. 250.

[Richard Brown]

It takes a pretty serious breach of the rules for a new election to be justified under RONR.  The vast majority of errors are the type that are deemed waived unless an immediate point of order (objection) is made.  Two weeks later is way too late.  It almost always must be done at the time of the breach.  Very few rule violations would justify a new election.  Even  then, someone needs to raise a point of order IN A MEETING.  The chairman would rule on the point of order and his ruling is subject to an appeal to the assembly.  It is the assembly that has the final word, not the chairman, pastor or some subordinate group. 

[Guest Lori Boller]

28 minutes ago, Guest Lori Boller said:

Our church held a congregational vote to call a new pastor.  The vote had been posted for more than 2 weeks.  At the time of the vote, the council president announced that we would be taking the vote, then passed out ballots to all present voting members.  48 yes, 2 no.

The next week each council member found a letter in their mailbox objecting that Robert's Rules were not followed and that a re-vote must be done. Does the objection need to be addressed at the time of the meeting?

 

[Guest Lori Boller]

Thank you so much for this information.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

41 minutes ago, Guest Lori Boller said:

Our church held a congregational vote to call a new pastor.  The vote had been posted for more than 2 weeks.  At the time of the vote, the council president announced that we would be taking the vote, then passed out ballots to all present voting members.  48 yes, 2 no.

The next week each council member found a letter in their mailbox objecting that Robert's Rules were not followed and that a re-vote must be done. Does the objection need to be addressed at the time of the meeting?

How was Robert's Rules not followed?

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

How was Robert's Rules not followed?

After the church service ended, the council president came up, addressed the congregation and said we would be taking the vote now.  (The congregation had the opportunity to meet with the potential pastor and ask questions the week before, and the impending vote had been announced several weeks prior.)  Ballots were passed out, collected, and counted.  The objection was that a meeting was not formally called to order, a motion made, discussion, adjourned.  There were no objections at the time of the vote or immediately after.  

[Hieu H. Huynh]

How are meetings scheduled according to your bylaws?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

How are meetings scheduled according to your bylaws?

Congregational meetings must be announced to the congregation at least 2 weeks prior to the meeting.  

 

[Richard Brown]

19 minutes ago, Guest said:

After the church service ended, the council president came up, addressed the congregation and said we would be taking the vote now.  (The congregation had the opportunity to meet with the potential pastor and ask questions the week before, and the impending vote had been announced several weeks prior.)  Ballots were passed out, collected, and counted.  The objection was that a meeting was not formally called to order, a motion made, discussion, adjourned.  There were no objections at the time of the vote or immediately after.  

This is not the type violation that would invalidate the vote pursuant to RONR.

Edited to add:  Failure to call a meeting to order, or to adjourn, or to properly state that "we are now going to vote" does not invalidate what happened at the meeting. If anyone had a problem with what was transpiring, a point of order should have been made at the time so as to allow an opportunity to correct any procedural error.  Minor procedural errors of that type do not invalidate a meeting or what transpires in the meeting.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

12 minutes ago, Guest said:

Congregational meetings must be announced to the congregation at least 2 weeks prior to the meeting.  

 

Was the required notice sent out?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

Was the required notice sent out?

Yes it was.  Verbal announcements at the end of service for the past 3-4 weeks as well as written announcements in the weekly bulletins.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

This is not the type violation that would invalidate the vote pursuant to RONR.

Edited to add:  Failure to call a meeting to order, or to adjourn, or to properly state that "we are now going to vote" does not invalidate what happened at the meeting. If anyone had a problem with what was transpiring, a point of order should have been made at the time so as to allow an opportunity to correct any procedural error.  Minor procedural errors of that type do not invalidate a meeting or what transpires in the meeting.

Thank you for all this information, it is very helpful.