Voting on a motion at a subsequent meeting

[Guest Andy]

We are an academic group getting ready to hold a Special Meeting with 4 days notice( according to our bylaws), to consider whether or not to allow an alternative grading scheme for this semester. We approved an identical motion last semester when we pivoted to on-line teaching. Because of the timing of the  special meeting, some members cannot attend (they are teaching). However, informal discussions have been taking place. Our regular meeting will be two days later, but we wanted to use it for other business since the meeting time is limited. Our bylaws specifically prohibit absentee and proxy voting. 

My question is: Could we discuss the motion at the Special Meeting and then (by another motion) take the vote at the regular meeting two days later? Is this any different from beginning a debate, then maybe making a motion to Postpone until the next meeting, where there might be further debate (or not), and then a vote. In this general case, those who were not present at the first meeting could vote on the motion? If such a procedure could be allowed, would the only motion be to Postpone, or could there be a motion to delay voting until the next regular meeting?

[Rob Elsman]

I have concerns that this "academic group" (faculty senate?) may be violating the right of members to attend meetings by scheduling the special meeting during hours when some of the members are required to teach.  If this "academic group" is an official organelle of the academic institution, the bylaws should be very carefully examined about this matter.

[Guest Andy]

Yes, it is a Faculty Senate. However, we teach from 7:30a.m. - 10:00 p.m. M-F. We are a large university. We have a regular meeting day and time and have actually had faculty elected as Senators who could not meet then. And that is why our meeting time is limited -it is one class period. However, our bylaws (established when we were a small college) provide for Special Meetings with 4 instructional days notice so I don't believe we are violating any rights, although it is not ideal.

The possibility of a lack of quorum is something else we recognize as a looming problem, but we know what to do in that eventuality.

[Rob Elsman]

Oh, I think the possibility of an inquorate meeting is the least of this senate's problems.

[Guest Andy]

I'd be very interested in your opinion. Can you please be more specific? And we are very interested in suggestions on how to handle this.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Andy said:

Could we discuss the motion at the Special Meeting and then (by another motion) take the vote at the regular meeting two days later?

The motion could indeed be postponed to the regular meeting two days later, although the assembly may not decide in advance that only the vote will occur at that time. Further debate will be in order at the regular meeting. When the motion becomes pending at the regular meeting, the assembly could then order the previous question in order to end debate, which would require a 2/3 vote for adoption.

1 hour ago, Guest Andy said:

Is this any different from beginning a debate, then maybe making a motion to Postpone until the next meeting, where there might be further debate (or not), and then a vote.

No, it is not any different.

1 hour ago, Guest Andy said:

In this general case, those who were not present at the first meeting could vote on the motion?

Yes, that is correct. Any members who are present at the time of the vote may vote on the motion. Whether or not they were present at some previous time is immaterial.

1 hour ago, Guest Andy said:

If such a procedure could be allowed, would the only motion be to Postpone, or could there be a motion to delay voting until the next regular meeting?

The only motion would be to postpone. The assembly may not decide to delay the vote, and only the vote, until the next regular meeting.

[Guest Andy]

I'd be very interested in knowing what the problems are, other than the one you mentioned above. We are especially interested in handling the problem of discussion in one meeting (with a quorum) and possibly voting in another meeting (with a quorum and potentially more members, at the regularly scheduled time). We will not have another regular meeting before the deadline from the registrar in getting possible alternative grades into the system. 

[Guest Andy]

I appreciate the reply. And I'm sorry for the multiple postings. The security images are giving me fits.

[J. J.]

On 10/28/2020 at 12:23 PM, Josh Martin said:

The only motion would be to postpone. The assembly may not decide to delay the vote, and only the vote, until the next regular meeting.

I think the special meeting could establish a polling time and place that will happen just before the regular meeting.  It would be a motion related to the polls and take a 2/3 vote, because it closes the polls. 

I don't know if this would be helpful in the situation, but it would be an option. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 10/28/2020 at 12:36 PM, Guest Andy said:

I appreciate the reply. And I'm sorry for the multiple postings. The security images are giving me fits.

You can join the forum as a member, and then you can use a user name and password (which could be stored by a browser) and you can stay logged in, rather than having to go through the security steps each time.

There is no membership fee.

[Nathan Zook]

If I may be so bold, the problem is that there are meetings being scheduled which deliberately conflict with the jobs of the members.  This violates the fundamental rights of those members to attend the meetings, which is what set off my alarm bells.

My suggestion would be to  have the members of the Senate elected and take office in such a fashion that they are able to communicate their inability to teach classes which conflict with the time of the meetings to their departments.  I would reserve a meeting time in the morning MWF, so that if a special meeting were needed, an available slot would appear either on the fourth academic day after the call of the special meeting or on the next day.

In other words, if professors need to communicate their availability to teach spring semester by November first, have elections in October, effective at the start of the spring semester.

[Atul Kapur]

55 minutes ago, Nathan Zook said:

If I may be so bold, the problem is that there are meetings being scheduled which deliberately conflict with the jobs of the members.  This violates the fundamental rights of those members to attend the meetings, which is what set off my alarm bells.

By that standard my emergency physician group could never schedule a meeting, because at any moment at least four of us are on duty. Likewise for a union with members working all three eight-hour shifts covering the full 24 hours.

Many such groups find alternatives so that the same group of members are not disadvantaged more than others. Or use work-arounds such as multi-part meetings.