How to raise the issue of previous invalid actions

[Guest B]

I've been part of the student senate at a mid-sized university for a couple of months. Recently, some things started getting forced through despite considerable opposition and proper procedure has been overlooked. I don't believe anyone has been acting maliciously - I think it is just out of ignorance. Examples of errors:

 

Example 1: I believe on multiple occasions business has been transacted with a majority present rather than a quorum as defined in the constitution. The quorum requirement for our body is considerably higher than RONR.

 

Example 2: I believe the votes on several issues are being counted incorrectly - Several types of action require 3/4 of quorum or 3/4 of the senate, but they are being treated as either a simple majority vote or a 2/3 vote of those voting. If we have a 40 member senate, with 30 present, and a requirement for "3/4 of the senate" to vote in favor, wouldn't that require 30 "aye" votes? If we have a 40 member senate requiring 3/4 for quorum, and vote requiring "3/4 of quorum", wouldn't that require 23 "aye" votes to pass?

 

Example 3: Counting invalid appointments as voting members - The constitution and bylaws are fairly specific about how much notice is required to legally substitute an alternate representative to the senate. Some appointments are being made without regard for these requirements, and some are even self-declared by the appointee at the time of roll call. Not only are these individuals being permitted to vote, but they are being used to determine quorum.

 

So, my question is this: is there a proper way to deal with such errors after they have occurred?

 

Some of the invalid votes have already resulted in action that cannot be undone, like placing an item before the entire student body for consideration, but others have not resulted in such outcomes.

 

I believe there are sufficient "nay" votes to have stopped several of the actions that were invalidly accepted by the leadership, but it is unlikely that there would be enough to pass a motion to annul or rescind. Because the initial vote was invalid, I don't think a vote should be required anyway.

 

If you could guide me to specific rules or interpretations of RONR regarding this, it would be much appreciated.

 

~B

[jstackpo]

Raise points of order if these things happen again.  But raise them RIGHT AWAY!.  See p. 250.

 

Judging from what you describe, it looks to me that it is too late to raise "retroactive" points - p. 251.  You need hard evidence for inquorate meetings;  "Errors" in announcing results MUST be point-of-ordered right away; but you might have  case for #3.

[Josh Martin]

Example 1: I believe on multiple occasions business has been transacted with a majority present rather than a quorum as defined in the constitution. The quorum requirement for our body is considerably higher than RONR.

 

...

 

If we have a 40 member senate requiring 3/4 for quorum...

 

This should be fixed as soon as possible. A quorum of 3/4 of the membership is ridiculously high. I would advise lowering it to a majority (at a quorate meeting, of course).

 

Example 2: I believe the votes on several issues are being counted incorrectly - Several types of action require 3/4 of quorum or 3/4 of the senate, but they are being treated as either a simple majority vote or a 2/3 vote of those voting. If we have a 40 member senate, with 30 present, and a requirement for "3/4 of the senate" to vote in favor, wouldn't that require 30 "aye" votes? If we have a 40 member senate requiring 3/4 for quorum, and vote requiring "3/4 of quorum", wouldn't that require 23 "aye" votes to pass?

 

The wording "3/4 of the senate" is ambiguous. If it is indeed intended for this to mean "a vote of 3/4 of the entire membership," then yes, there would need to be 30 votes in favor for the motion to pass if the assembly has 40 members. It also seems like a very high voting requirement. The wording "3/4 of the quorum" is even more ambiguous and I haven't the slightest idea what that's supposed to mean. It will be up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

 

Now, I will say that whatever "3/4 of the senate" and "3/4 of the quorum" mean, it's certainly not reasonable to interpret them as requiring a majority or 2/3 of the members present and voting. While "of the senate" and "of the quorum" are ambiguous, 3/4 obviously means 3/4. It would seem that, at a minimum, a vote of 3/4 of the members present and voting would be necessary.

 

In any event, unless this is for amending the Constitution or Bylaws or something, these seem like absurdly high voting requirements, and it might be advisable to amend your rules to change them.

 

Example 3: Counting invalid appointments as voting members - The constitution and bylaws are fairly specific about how much notice is required to legally substitute an alternate representative to the senate. Some appointments are being made without regard for these requirements, and some are even self-declared by the appointee at the time of roll call. Not only are these individuals being permitted to vote, but they are being used to determine quorum.

 

If it is indeed correct that they are not valid members, that is certainly a problem. This also seems to be a sort of "proxy" voting, which RONR strongly advises against. So perhaps you should change that too.

 

So, my question is this: is there a proper way to deal with such errors after they have occurred?

 

Possibly. Generally speaking, a Point of Order must be raised at the time of the breach. Some violations are so egregious, however, that they constitute a continuing breach. It's possible that you have a case for a continuing breach in any or all of these examples, but it depends on the facts of the specific case.

 

Example 1: A Point of Order regarding the lack of quorum must generally be raised at the time, however, it may be raised after the fact if there is "clear and convincing proof" that a quorum was not present. Such proof is generally difficult to obtain.

 

Example 2: A Point of Order regarding an incorrect declaration of the result of a vote must generally be raised at the time. If it is indeed correct that "3/4 of the senate" means "a vote of 3/4 of the entire membership" and there was less than 3/4 of the membership present, however, then that would violate a rule protecting absentees. In such a case, a Point of Order after the fact would be appropriate... but it seems you'll have the same burden of proof problems as above.

 

Example 3: This may be your best bet. If it is indeed correct that non-members voted and their votes could have affected the result, then the motion is null and void, and a Point of Order regarding this may certainly raised. If they couldn't have affected the result, it doesn't matter. Of course, you'll only be able to challenge counted votes with this, otherwise there's no way of knowing whether their votes could have affected the result. As for the quorum problems, see above.

 

In the future, it's really best to raise a Point of Order at the time whenever possible.

 

Some of the invalid votes have already resulted in action that cannot be undone, like placing an item before the entire student body for consideration, but others have not resulted in such outcomes.

 

I believe there are sufficient "nay" votes to have stopped several of the actions that were invalidly accepted by the leadership, but it is unlikely that there would be enough to pass a motion to annul or rescind. Because the initial vote was invalid, I don't think a vote should be required anyway.

 

Even if you can raise a Point of Order at this time, a vote might still be needed. If the chair rules your point not well taken, you can Appeal from the decision of the chair. A majority vote is required to overturn the chair's ruling.

 

I'd also note that a motion to Rescind only requires a majority vote with previous notice, although your rules might provide otherwise.

 

If you could guide me to specific rules or interpretations of RONR regarding this, it would be much appreciated.

 

Regarding the specific issues you've raised, see the following. All page references are to RONR, 11th ed.

 

Lack of Quorum: pg. 349, lines 21-28

Incorrect Declaration of Voting Result: Official Interpretation 2006-18

Votes of Non-Members: pg. 416, lines 27-33

 

You should also make sure to thoroughly read the sections on Point of Order and Appeal. See pgs. 247-260.