Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

(Recounting) The size of RONR


Shmuel Gerber

Recommended Posts

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!)

 

I can assure you that the authorship team has no desire to substantially increase the page count for the next edition of RONR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feel free to strike out Section 52 to give yourself breathing room.

 

How many questions have shown up on this b-board related to that Section?  That should indicate the level of interest in or need for that material.

Amen!!!  I honestly believe the only time I ever see it used is in my state Legislature.  And occasionally in Congress.  And neither body uses RONR as its parliamentary authority.  It's a complicated, awkward and seldom used archaic fiction that ought to be abolished.  Kudos to The Standard Code for doing just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while you are at it, strike out all references to "Incidental Main motions", their definitions and the "consequences" of a motion being classified as "Incidental Main".  In 45 years of parliamenting around, I have NEVER worked an organization that payed the slightest attention to the distinction, let alone knew what it was.  (I'm not sure I do either, any more.)

 

If RONR "embodies a codification of the present-day [emphasis added] general parliamentary law" (Intro, p. xxix) it would seem time to prune off such excrescences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while you are at it, strike out all references to "Incidental Main motions", their definitions and the "consequences" of a motion being classified as "Incidental Main".  In 45 years of parliamenting around, I have NEVER worked an organization that payed the slightest attention to the distinction, let alone knew what it was.  (I'm not sure I do either, any more.)

 

The suggestion is welcome (or at least I welcome it), but that doesn't mean this change will happen or that I think it should happen.

 

"The chief difference in the rules governing original and incidental main motions is that an Objection to the Consideration of a Question (26) can be applied only to original main and not to incidental main motions. The reason is that, in the case of an incidental main motion dealing with a subject previously entered into, the involvement has already begun and it is too late to object; and in the case of an incidental main motion involving only procedure, an objection to its consideration has no legitimate purpose. In conventions, incidental main motions are not referred to a resolutions committee (pp. 633ff.)." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 102)

 

I think that is the extent of the ramifications of distinguishing between an original main motion and an incidental main motion, but the term "incidental main motion" may still be a useful way describing certain types of main motions. Which types, you ask? Incidental main motions, of course. :)

 

(Look how much space having that term just saved.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen!!!  I honestly believe the only time I ever see it used is in my state Legislature.  And occasionally in Congress.  And neither body uses RONR as its parliamentary authority.  It's a complicated, awkward and seldom used archaic fiction that ought to be abolished.  Kudos to The Standard Code for doing just that.

 

The suggestion is welcome (or at least I welcome it), but that doesn't mean this change will happen or that I think it should happen.

 

In fact, I disagree. Members of assemblies who have no use for these procedures can simply skip section 52. But if it were omitted, my feeling is that, eventually, some assemblies would find themselves reinventing these procedures (or continuing to use them as they always have), for the same reasons they were developed in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The suggestion is welcome (or at least I welcome it), but that doesn't mean this change will happen or that I think it should happen.

 

In fact, I disagree. Members of assemblies who have no use for these procedures can simply skip section 52. But if it were omitted, my feeling is that, eventually, some assemblies would find themselves reinventing these procedures (or continuing to use them as they always have), for the same reasons they were developed in the first place.

 

While I'm not a part of any organization that I expect will ever make use of that section, I've heard of organizations that wouldn't surprise me if they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only recommendation for the next edition is to formalize the axiomatic structure (stated on p. 1i) of Robert's Rules.  The postulates or axioms should be clearly stated at the beginning, and then all the theorems which follow from these axioms, showing how they're derived.

 

That's an interesting suggestion, but there is no axiomatic structure. The rules flow from the principles (or perhaps vice versa), but the complete rules of parliamentary procedure cannot be derived from the underlying principles any more than the complete laws of the United States can be derived from the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while you are at it, strike out all references to "Incidental Main motions", their definitions and the "consequences" of a motion being classified as "Incidental Main".  In 45 years of parliamenting around, I have NEVER worked an organization that payed the slightest attention to the distinction, let alone knew what it was.  (I'm not sure I do either, any more.)

 

If RONR "embodies a codification of the present-day [emphasis added] general parliamentary law" (Intro, p. xxix) it would seem time to prune off such excrescences.

 

This distinction is extremely important the Students' Association (at a Public University) I'm part of. We are required by state law to give 7 days notice on any original main motion to the public, but this does not apply to incidental main motions. A meeting would be unmanageable if we couldn't introduce IMM in real time. I have a feeling that this distinction applies to many public / semi-public bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we are now in the Advanced Discussion Forum, it may be worthwhile to return to the issue raised in the originating thread as to whether or not the effect of ordering a recount is to return the assembly to 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.

 

For example, one can easily imagine a situation in which no one doubts the accuracy of the tellers’ tabulations of a counted rising vote, and the only mistake the assembly wishes to correct is the chair’s erroneous declaration that a motion was either adopted or rejected based upon a mistake as to the vote required for adoption, with no point of order having been raised at the time. Other tools are generally available to solve the problem (e.g. rescission or renewal), but there may well be an occasion in which ordering a recount would be preferable if permissible.

 

RONR tells us that a recount can be ordered "to ensure that the count is precisely correct as reported" (RONR, p. 410, ll. 33-35, emphasis supplied), but I’m not at all sure this means that other sorts of errors cannot be corrected as well.

 

If anyone has done any research into this (I'll admit that I haven't), I'd appreciate any information that he or she might be willing to share (but please remember that we're not interested in what any federal, state or local law may have to say on the subject - hanging chads and stuff like that springing to mind :) ). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The suggestion is welcome (or at least I welcome it), but that doesn't mean this change will happen or that I think it should happen.

 

In fact, I disagree. Members of assemblies who have no use for these procedures can simply skip section 52. But if it were omitted, my feeling is that, eventually, some assemblies would find themselves reinventing these procedures (or continuing to use them as they always have), for the same reasons they were developed in the first place.

We are a legislated body (in Canada) that uses Roberts and Committee of the Whole to deal with In Camera items. That doesn't mean that sect. 52 is not too long. Paul 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RONR tells us that a recount can be ordered "to ensure that the count is precisely correct as reported" (RONR, p. 410, ll. 33-35, emphasis supplied), but I’m not at all sure this means that other sorts of errors cannot be corrected as well.

Well, shifting the supplied emphasis to: "precisely correct as reported" suggests that any anomaly in the teller's report, including not only the number of votes cast, but also the number needed for passage, could properly be a trigger for a recount, as well as a recapitulation of the report.

 

It is worth noting that if a properly completed tellers' report is read aloud, and repeated by the chair, it is nearly impossible for this error to occur in the first place, much less after a second chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, shifting the supplied emphasis to: "precisely correct as reported" suggests that any anomaly in the teller's report, including not only the number of votes cast, but also the number needed for passage, could properly be a trigger for a recount, as well as a recapitulation of the report.

 

But the stated reason for ordering a recount is still to ensure that the count is precisely correct as reported.

 

It is worth noting that if a properly completed tellers' report is read aloud, and repeated by the chair, it is nearly impossible for this error to occur in the first place, much less after a second chance.

 

I agree entirely. As I noted in another thread, these procedures are spelled out in RONR for very good reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the stated reason for ordering a recount is still to ensure that the count is precisely correct as reported.

 

Yes, but how is the count reported?  In the context of a complete tellers' report.  This includes not only the count of votes cast for each alternative, but the count of ballots cast, the count of spoiled ballots, and a calculation of the required count for passage, any of which could change upon recounting the physical ballots.  If any of those numbers were considered in doubt, or missing, a recount would be justified.  And since the result may depend on more than just "the" count (of votes cast), it is reasonable to suppose that the announcement of the result could be corrected at that point.

 

A stretch?  Well, okay, maybe.   But stretching is good for ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but how is the count reported?  In the context of a complete tellers' report.  This includes not only the count of votes cast for each alternative, but the count of ballots cast, the count of spoiled ballots, and a calculation of the required count for passage, any of which could change upon recounting the physical ballots.  If any of those numbers were considered in doubt, or missing, a recount would be justified.  And since the result may depend on more than just "the" count (of votes cast), it is reasonable to suppose that the announcement of the result could be corrected at that point.

 

Sure, but all of these things you mention relate to a correction of the count. None of them has any bearing upon the question as to whether ordering a recount will afford an opportunity for another (and perhaps different) ruling by the chair as to the vote required for adoption, which is an example of the sort of thing we're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...