Correcting Voting Error

[Guest Mr. D]

Our organization voted on a resolution requiring a majority vote by ballot.  The tellers reported a vote of 19 yes ballots, 18 no ballots and one ballot marked abstain.  As chairman, I declared the motion failed, erroneously thinking a majority of ballots cast (including abstention ballots) was needed for passage.   There were some that did not cast ballots.  No point of order was called for after the vote was announced and the meeting proceeded on to adjournment.  After the meeting I further reviewed the proceedings, our by-laws and Robert's Rule of Order, discovering my error.

 

Our group only meets a couple times per year.  To date, no one has raised this issue with me.  What obligation as chairman do I have to right my error with the organization?  I don't think I can just say I was wrong and change things outside of a meeting.

 

Am I required to call a special meeting of the organization expressly to address this vote?  Do I have to call a Point of Order on myself?  If I declare the point well taken, then do I announce the motion passed and then the meeting adjourns immediately since this is the only item to be discussed?

 

Or do I just wait until our next regular meeting and wait to see if it is brought up then?  Is there a statute of limitations on correcting an error? 

[DrEntropy]

With very few exceptions, a point of order must be timely, that is it must raised promptly at the time of the breach (RONR page 250-251, also in the particular case of voting, page 408-409).  Your case is not (in my opinion) one of the exceptions, and so it is too late for a point of order.  Perhaps you can inform the sponsors of the resolution, who might be encouraged to present it (again) for a vote at the next meeting, or if the need is urgent, at a special meeting called for that purpose (if your bylaws allow for such things).   You are not required to do these things, but you might want to for the good of the organization.

[Richard Brown]

You may have another option... and may be in luck.... provided the ballots have been retained.  The key is that the vote was by ballot and that the ballots have been securely retained.  If that is the case, it seems like a recount can be ordered at a special session.  Here is what RONR says about it on pages 418-419.  Pay close attention to the time limitations:

 

"After completion of an election or balloting on a motion, unless the voting body directs otherwise, the tellers place the ballots and tally sheets in the custody of the secretary, who keeps them under seal until the time within which a recount [page 419] may be ordered expires, and then destroys them. A recount may be ordered by the voting body, by a majority vote, at the same session at which the voting result was announced, or at the next regular session if that session is held within a quarterly time interval (see pp. 89–90). A recount may also be ordered at a special session properly called for that purpose, if held within a quarterly time interval of the session at which the voting result was announced and before the next regular session."

 

It seems to me that after the recount, you can announce that your previous pronouncement of the result of the vote was in error and that the motion did pass. 

 

Other than that possible option, I agree with the advice offered by DrEntropy.

 

Edited to add:  All of this is  based on the assumption that this was an important motion and that it is worth going to all this trouble.

[Dan Honemann]

You may have another option... and may be in luck.... provided the ballots have been retained.  The key is that the vote was by ballot and that the ballots have been securely retained.  If that is the case, it seems like a recount can be ordered at a special session.  Here is what RONR says about it on pages 418-419.  Pay close attention to the time limitations:

 

"After completion of an election or balloting on a motion, unless the voting body directs otherwise, the tellers place the ballots and tally sheets in the custody of the secretary, who keeps them under seal until the time within which a recount [page 419] may be ordered expires, and then destroys them. A recount may be ordered by the voting body, by a majority vote, at the same session at which the voting result was announced, or at the next regular session if that session is held within a quarterly time interval (see pp. 89–90). A recount may also be ordered at a special session properly called for that purpose, if held within a quarterly time interval of the session at which the voting result was announced and before the next regular session."

 

It seems to me that after the recount, you can announce that your previous pronouncement of the result of the vote was in error and that the motion did pass. 

 

Other than that possible option, I agree with the advice offered by DrEntropy.

 

Edited to add:  All of this is  based on the assumption that this was an important motion and that it is worth going to all this trouble.

 

The purpose of a recount is "to ensure that the count is precisely correct as reported" (RONR, p. 410, ll. 33-35, emphasis supplied).

 

I can find no clear-cut indication in RONR that an effect of ordering a recount is to place the assembly back in the exact position it occupied before the result of the vote was announced, so that another (and perhaps different) ruling by the chair as to the vote required for adoption is either called for or permissible, but I have no problem accepting this as being the case.

[jstackpo]

The purpose of a recount is "to ensure that the count is precisely correct as reported" (RONR, p. 410, ll. 33-35, emphasis supplied).

 

I can find no clear-cut indication in RONR that an effect of ordering a recount is to place the assembly back in the exact position it occupied before the result of the vote was announced, so that another (and perhaps different) ruling by the chair as to the vote required for adoption is either called for or permissible, but I have no problem accepting this as being the case.

 

Yeah...  but what purpose would be served by a recount if it didn't entail the possibility of correcting an erroneous count (or erroneous interpretation of the count by the chair) to the extent of changing the outcome of the vote?

 

This may be only implicit in the current RONR phrasing  (hint, hint: any A-Team members reading this?) but it seems to be an inexorable implication.

 

I think "Recount" deserves a whole section of its own, in there with the other Incidental Motions.

 

(If the A-Team works hard enough, we may break the 1000 page barrier for RONR/12.  Only 200 or so to go.  Go, team, go!)

[Dan Honemann]

Yeah...  but what purpose would be served by a recount if it didn't entail the possibility of correcting an erroneous count (or erroneous interpretation of the count by the chair) to the extent of changing the outcome of the vote?

 

 

Of course it entails the possibility of correcting an erroneous count. That's what it's for. But that's an entirely different thing than correcting an erroneous ruling as to the vote required for adoption of the motion.

[Gary Novosielski]

Our organization voted on a resolution requiring a majority vote by ballot.  The tellers reported a vote of 19 yes ballots, 18 no ballots and one ballot marked abstain.  As chairman, I declared the motion failed, erroneously thinking a majority of ballots cast (including abstention ballots) was needed for passage.   There were some that did not cast ballots. 

 

As a matter of fact, you were right in thinking that a majority of ballots cast was required for passage.  

 

Your error was in thinking that the ballot marked "abstain" should have been counted as a ballot cast.  Ballots with Abstain written on them, or left blank completely are not counted as votes cast.  The person who wrote Abstain abstained from voting. 

 

The people who turned in no ballot also abstained--just as much as the one who did.  They don't get counted either.

[jstackpo]

Of course it entails the possibility of correcting an erroneous count. That's what it's for. But that's an entirely different thing than correcting an erroneous ruling as to the vote required for adoption of the motion.

 

But...  if the ruling was actually correct but based on an erroneous count, that seems to me to be a different animal, and is correctable in both aspects, by correcting the vote tabulation and then, if appropriate, correcting the declaration of the outcome.

 

A fine distinction perhaps, but one that deserves explication.

 

(I realize I have departed from the OP's original setup:  his was "Good vote tabulation, bad call"; I am positing "Bad vote tabulation, correct call".)

[Guest Guest]

You may have another option... and may be in luck.... provided the ballots have been retained.  The key is that the vote was by ballot and that the ballots have been securely retained.  If that is the case, it seems like a recount can be ordered at a special session.  Here is what RONR says about it on pages 418-419.  Pay close attention to the time limitations:

 

"After completion of an election or balloting on a motion, unless the voting body directs otherwise, the tellers place the ballots and tally sheets in the custody of the secretary, who keeps them under seal until the time within which a recount [page 419] may be ordered expires, and then destroys them. A recount may be ordered by the voting body, by a majority vote, at the same session at which the voting result was announced, or at the next regular session if that session is held within a quarterly time interval (see pp. 89–90). A recount may also be ordered at a special session properly called for that purpose, if held within a quarterly time interval of the session at which the voting result was announced and before the next regular session."

 

It seems to me that after the recount, you can announce that your previous pronouncement of the result of the vote was in error and that the motion did pass. 

 

Other than that possible option, I agree with the advice offered by DrEntropy.

 

Edited to add:  All of this is  based on the assumption that this was an important motion and that it is worth going to all this trouble.

 

Yes, the ballots have been retained and the bylaws have provision for calling a special meeting. They state that "only items of business that the special meeting was called for may be discussed and voted on."    

 

If a "recount may also be ordered at a special session properly called for that purpose", is a recount the only motion that would be in order at that session?  This was a fairly contentious item (as evidenced by the close vote) and I could see a desire by some to again debate the issue.  I'm not sure that would be in the best interest of the organization.

 

If a motion to recount is properly offered and passes, and the pronouncement is that the motion did pass, can a motion to reconsider be offered or did that opportunity expire since it was not "made only on the day the vote to be reconsidered was taken"?

[Guest Mr. D]

Sorry, the previous reply from Guest- was from me, the original poster.  

[Guest Mr. D]

As a matter of fact, you were right in thinking that a majority of ballots cast was required for passage.  

 

Your error was in thinking that the ballot marked "abstain" should have been counted as a ballot cast.  Ballots with Abstain written on them, or left blank completely are not counted as votes cast.  The person who wrote Abstain abstained from voting. 

 

The people who turned in no ballot also abstained--just as much as the one who did.  They don't get counted either.

Yes, I erroneously totaled all the ballots received to determine the number of votes needed for majority, not the number of ballots cast WITH A VOTE.  My mistake, and unfortunately, no one else rose to correct it either.

[jstackpo]

 

 

If a motion to recount is properly offered and passes, and the pronouncement is that the motion did pass, can a motion to reconsider be offered or did that opportunity expire since it was not "made only on the day the vote to be reconsidered was taken"?

 

I'd say No Reconsider of the original motion.

 

May I suggest an alternative strategy...

 

Since the original resolution was declared to be defeated, just leave it at that.  Don't fuss with recounts and whether they, as Dan suggests, are only for getting the numbers right, or (as I might be arguing) can be used to "correct" an erroneous call.

 

Since a defeated motion can be renewed at a later meeting/session, simply call the special meeting to consider and vote on the original resolution all over again.  This wipes the slate clean and (if you get it right this time) will resolve the issue.

[DrEntropy]

 

Since a defeated motion can be renewed at a later meeting/session, simply call the special meeting to consider and vote on the original resolution all over again.  This wipes the slate clean and (if you get it right this time) will resolve the issue.

 

This will also open the issue up to debate  (deliberation!) which is usually a good thing .... perhaps the resolution can be tuned via amendment to win broader support.

[Shmuel Gerber]

The rest of this topic has been moved here.