Disputing the vote count of a carried motion

[Guest Doug]

At a meeting a motion was made to accept an application for membership and was properly seconded.  The chair counted votes by raising of hands.  I sat in the front of the meeting and did not turn around to count myself; hadn't ever thought it necessary.  But the chair banged the gavel pretty quickly, announcing the motion carried.  Afterward many members disputed the count, and the general consensus is that more "opposed" votes were placed than "in favor" votes.  The meeting adjourned without any argument from the body; I began hearing complaints immediately after the meeting.  That particular motion is a done deal.  But questions quickly circulated concerning the chair's lack of a pause, during which a call for division may have been made ahead of the gavel, and if there were any options to dispute the chair's decision after the gavel fell.  Since approving membership was practically immediate, I see no way to rescind.  Virtually none of us are well educated on the rules, though I've begun reading up.  I've yet to find a definitive answer on this and hope someone here might have some insight for us.  Thank you.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

It is too late to raise a point of order on this issue. See "Timeliness requirement for a point of order" in RONR 11th ed., pp. 250-251.

[Guest Doug]

Thank you for your response.  The carried motion mentioned above is of course too far gone for further action. But were this to happen again, say at next month's meeting, does the body have any options after the chair declares the motion carried and bangs the gavel?  It seems that in my reading a motion to appeal might be possible, provided it happens immediately following the disputed decision of the chair.  

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Immediately call for a division of the assembly (see RONR 11th ed., pp. 280-282).

[Guest Doug]

Thank you very much for the assistance and references.  We all believed at the time that the gavel finalized the motion, preventing any further action.  Since then those of us reading up on it have come to different conclusions, leaving confusion in the wake.  This is very helpful.  None of us own the books, and clearly google searches haven't been so fruitful.  I'm going to purchase the complete rules and the "in brief" guide to bring to meetings and share with other members.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

There is no such thing as "gaveling through" a measure (see RONR 11th ed., p. 387).

[Richard Brown]

34 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

There is no such thing as "gaveling through" a measure (see RONR 11th ed., p. 387).

Well, there isn't SUPPOSED to be any such thing.  But, in real life, I submit it does happen, just as may have happened in this case.

Here is the actual text of the first few lines on page 387:  "It should be noted that, under legitimate parliamentary procedure, there is no such thing as "gaveling through" a measure. The right of members to debate or introduce secondary motions cannot be cut off by the chair's attempting to put a question to vote so quickly that no member can get the floor. . . . "   (Emphasis mine).

Even after the chair declared the motion adopted, a member could have called for a division, made a motion for a counted vote, made a point of order, etc.  Unfortunately, this is one of those situations where a demand for a division, motion  for a counted vote, point of order, etc has to be made immediately, before other business is taken up.

[Guest Doug]

On 10/23/2016 at 1:08 PM, Richard Brown said:

Even after the chair declared the motion adopted, a member could have called for a division, made a motion for a counted vote, made a point of order, etc.  Unfortunately, this is one of those situations where a demand for a division, motion  for a counted vote, point of order, etc has to be made immediately, before other business is taken up

That's the specific answer we were looking for.  At the time, none of us really knew our options, and most believed the gavel ended all further action on a motion.  I purchased RONR 11th edition, as well as couple "in brief" paperbacks.  I want to study up on this and share with other members my findings, and carry an "in brief" to future meetings for quick reference.  I very much appreciate all the responses and considerations.  I've only ever read a very condensed synopsis of the rules, and after posting this topic and browsing through other topics on this page I know we have much to learn.

[jstackpo]

And don't neglect to get a copy of your association bylaws and adopted special rules of order, if any.  Then read with care.  They may well pick up where RONR leaves off with specific rule variations just for your association.  Your bylaws supersede RONR if there is disagreement or inconsistencies.

(Gen. Robert and the entire A-Team, past and present, are a very self-effacing bunch.)

[Gary c Tesser]

15 hours ago, Guest Doug said:

That's the specific answer we were looking for.  At the time, none of us really knew our options, and most believed the gavel ended all further action on a motion.  I purchased RONR 11th edition, as well as couple "in brief" paperbacks.  I want to study up on this and share with other members my findings, and carry an "in brief" to future meetings for quick reference.  I very much appreciate all the responses and considerations.  I've only ever read a very condensed synopsis of the rules, and after posting this topic and browsing through other topics on this page I know we have much to learn.

1.  What do you mean, "couple of 'in brief' paperbacks"?   There is only one official RONR - In Brief (some spell it without the hyphen, and even without the spaces around the hyphen -- mostly college graduates); there are numerous other books, and I'll say the one by our friend Alan Jennings is generally well regarded (by at least Mr Brown and myslef, though Mr Gerber spectacularly rakes it over the coals -- though for all I know, notwithstanding, Mr Gerber might like Jennings's book, remember Gerber is the type to rake ice cubes over the coals and wonder where the steam comes from).

2.  Don't forget, we're always here.  Hypervigilant.  Argus-eyed.  Underpaid. Universally devilishly handsome* (or alluringly cute, for the girls, if any ever show up).

__________

* Isaac Asimov reference

[Joshua Katz]

15 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

1.  What do you mean, "couple of 'in brief' paperbacks"?   There is only one official RONR - In Brief (some spell it without the hyphen, and even without the spaces around the hyphen -- mostly college graduates); there are numerous other books, and I'll say the one by our friend Alan Jennings is generally well regarded (by at least Mr Brown and myslef, though Mr Gerber spectacularly rakes it over the coals -- though for all I know, notwithstanding, Mr Gerber might like Jennings's book, remember Gerber is the type to rake ice cubes over the coals and wonder where the steam comes from).

2.  Don't forget, we're always here.  Hypervigilant.  Argus-eyed.  Underpaid. Universally devilishly handsome* (or alluringly cute, for the girls, if any ever show up).

__________

* Isaac Asimov reference

To the best of my understanding, while there is only one such book, there are, in fact, several copies of that book in circulation.