Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Illegal vote?


Guest Barbara

Recommended Posts

Our church is a congregational church in which the congregational meetings are suppose to follow Robert's Rules of Order. We had a special meeting recently to vote on whether or not to demolish a house on our property. Each side of the debate was presented and time was given for questions and discussion. After almost two hours of discussions, a member of the congregation made a motion to end the discussion and vote on the issue. The motion was seconded. The moderator allowed several minutes of additional discussion after the motion was made. He continued to give time warnings during this discussion that followed the motion. When the time was up, he asked if anyone else wanted to make a comment. When no one spoke or seemed to wish to speak, the vote was called. Now, a couple weeks after this meeting, some members of the church who do not like the way the vote turned out want to challenge the vote as being illegal. They claim that there should have been a 2/3 vote by the members at the meeting in order to end the discussion before voting on the issue. We did not have a vote to end the discussion, only a motion and a second and then a limited time for further discussion. Was the vote illegal or should it stand because no one spoke out against taking a vote and no one else seemed to want to speak after the final discussion time was up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...a member of the congregation made a motion to end the discussion and vote on the issue. The motion was seconded.

That was a motion for the previous question. It is not debatable, and requires two-thirds vote -- as the disatisfied members are pointing out after the fact. However, the moderator apparently didn't handle the motion for the previous question correctly, and instead allowed debate to continue on the main motion.

The moderator allowed several minutes of additional discussion after the motion was made. He continued to give time warnings during this discussion that followed the motion. When the time was up, he asked if anyone else wanted to make a comment. When no one spoke or seemed to wish to speak, the vote was called. Now, a couple weeks after this meeting, some members of the church who do not like the way the vote turned out want to challenge the vote as being illegal. They claim that there should have been a 2/3 vote by the members at the meeting in order to end the discussion before voting on the issue. We did not have a vote to end the discussion, only a motion and a second and then a limited time for further discussion. Was the vote illegal or should it stand because no one spoke out against taking a vote and no one else seemed to want to speak after the final discussion time was up?

The procedure was improper, but a challenge (point of order) would have had to be timely. The outcome of the vote stands.

The motion could be rescinded, or amended... assuming the decision hasn't yet been fully executed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... After almost two hours of discussions, a member of the congregation made a motion to end the discussion and vote on the issue.

... The moderator allowed several minutes of additional discussion after the motion was made.

...When the time was up, he asked if anyone else wanted to make a comment.

When no one spoke or seemed to wish to speak, the vote was called.

When no one wants the floor, then the proper parliamentary procedure is for the chair to close debate.

This is called "unanimous consent" or "general consent."

From your description, I see nothing wrong with HOW the debate was closed. - No one wanted to debate. So debate ended.

Now, a couple weeks after this meeting, some members ... want to challenge the vote as being illegal.

They claim that there should have been a 2/3 vote by the members at the meeting in order to end the discussion before voting on the issue.

We did not have a vote to end the discussion, only a motion and a second and then a limited time for further discussion.

They should have continued debate, then.

Since they didn't (a.) continue debate; (b.) object to the chair's use of unanimous consent to close debate (and to conduct the vote on the issue itself), then their argument is invalid. You cannot challenge "a closing of debate" "a couple of weeks after [a] meeting."

Was the vote illegal or should it stand because no one spoke out against taking a vote and no one else seemed to want to speak after the final discussion time was up?

Whatever vote was conducted on the issue, stands (whether it was adoption or rejection).

Any irregularity in the act of closing debate won't invalidate the vote on the main motion (i.e., the thing being debated).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your clarifications. I realize the procedures were not followed correctly. However, if no one opposed the motion then would that count the same as having a unanimous consent? Or, because there was some additional time allowed for discussion, even though it was limited, would that count as having exhausted everyone's right to speak if no one else wanted to speak when the time was up? The moderator did ask if anyone else wanted to make a comment. Does that count as everyone having the chance to speak and by having no one else respond, does that count as having exhausted the right to speak and so the vote would follow without needing a motion? I would also like to know how to determine when a challenge needs to be made by in order to be timely. This was a special meeting, not a regularly scheduled meeting. Regular meetings take place annually. I appreciate everyone's opinions. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... The moderator did ask if anyone else wanted to make a comment. Does that count as everyone having the chance to speak and by having no one else respond, does that count as having exhausted the right to speak and so the vote would follow without needing a motion?

Presumably there already was a motion before the assembly -- that should have been the first step, before any debate started. The question on which members were about to vote should have been restated by the chair just prior to the vote. However, the time to quibble about that would have been right at the time the vote was called for. Even someone shouting out, 'What exactly are we voting on?' would have sufficed, even if it doesn't sound very polished. 'Would the chair please state the question,' sounds more polite.

I would also like to know how to determine when a challenge needs to be made by in order to be timely. This was a special meeting, not a regularly scheduled meeting. Regular meetings take place annually. I appreciate everyone's opinions. Thank you.

In most cases points of order must be raised pretty much right away (there are some exceptions in cases where the violation is sufficiently serious to constitute a continuing breach; however, nothing you described in this situation rises to that level).

RONR pp. 243-244 describes the timeliness requirement for a point of order. Some excerpts:

'If a question of order is to be raised, it must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs.' (p. 243 ll. 19-20)

'Points of order regarding the conduct of a vote may be raised immediately following the announcement of the voting result -- up until another member has been recognized and has introduced another matter.' (p. 243 line 32 - p. 244 line 3)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...