J. J.

Recapitulation

36 posts in this topic

The society's bylaws require that "Any expenditures above one thousand dollars shall require a two-thirds vote to be adopted."

At a meeting of the assembly there is a motion to approve an expenditure of $2500.00.  The chair calls for a standing vote, and the assembly adopts a motion that the vote be counted.

The vote is taken and counted.  The result is 64 in favor 33 against.   The chair announced that the ayes have it and the motion was adopted. No one raised a point of order.  The vote is recorded in the minutes

Could, at the next meeting, a "recapitulation" be ordered.  If so, should the chair state that the motion was not adopted as it did not receive  the required 2/3 vote?  I think those could be two separate questions.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J. J. said:

The society's bylaws require that "Any expenditures above one thousand dollars shall require a two-thirds vote to be adopted."

At a meeting of the assembly there is a motion to approve an expenditure of $2500.00.  The chair calls for a standing vote, and the assembly adopts a motion that the vote be counted.

The vote is taken and counted.  The result is 64 in favor 33 against.   The chair announced that the ayes have it and the motion was adopted. No one raised a point of order.  The vote is recorded in the minutes

Could, at the next meeting, a "recapitulation" be ordered.  If so, should the chair state that the motion was not adopted as it did not receive  the required 2/3 vote?  I think those could be two separate questions.  

 

So far as I can tell, a "recapitulation" is only applicable to a roll call vote, so no, I don't think this could be ordered. The assembly could theoretically order a recount for a counted rising vote, but only if tally sheets or other written records of the vote counts were taken and preserved, which seems unlikely in practice. Assuming this could actually be done, however, I see no reason why the chair could not use this opportunity to correct his math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

So far as I can tell, a "recapitulation" is only applicable to a roll call vote, so no, I don't think this could be ordered. The assembly could theoretically order a recount for a counted rising vote, but only if tally sheets or other written records of the vote counts were taken and preserved, which seems unlikely in practice. Assuming this could actually be done, however, I see no reason why the chair could not use this opportunity to correct his math.

A "recount"  can be ordered on a standing counted (pp. 444-45), in an election at least.

The vote was counted, so it should have been in the minutes.  An uncounted standing vote could normally not be recounted, nor have a recapitulation done, for the reason you mention, no record of the vote.

The chair counted a standing vote, and the count was properly included in the minutes.  All parties agree that the was 64 to 33 and that this is less than the required two thirds vote.

A member moves that the vote be recounted or recapitulated at the next meeting.  Is that in order?

If so, the secretary reads the result.  Can the chair then announce that the result is not 2/3 being in favor and that the motion is lost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J. J. said:

A member moves that the vote be recounted or recapitulated at the next meeting.  Is that in order?

Josh already answered this. If nothing was recorded other than the total number of votes cast, then there is literally nothing that could be recounted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, J. J. said:

A "recount"  can be ordered on a standing counted (pp. 444-45), in an election at least.

This cites p. 411, ll. 19-21, which states that the tellers' tally sheets are subject to recount, but (by implication) that the vote itself cannot be retaken. So I agree with Josh. If there were tally sheets taken, then they could order a recount of them and, even if the same total is arrived at, thereby change the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Josh already answered this. If nothing was recorded other than the total number of votes cast, then there is literally nothing that could be recounted.

There is a record, however, in the minutes.  "For the motion, 64.  Against the motion, 33.  The motion was adopted."  That is standard on a counted vote.

 

I agree that you cannot recount a vote that wasn't counted in the first .  Is the count, as recorded in the minutes,  enough to trigger a recount.  I can argue this, forcefully, either way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Alexis Hunt said:

This cites p. 411, ll. 19-21, which states that the tellers' tally sheets are subject to recount, but (by implication) that the vote itself cannot be retaken. So I agree with Josh. If there were tally sheets taken, then they could order a recount of them and, even if the same total is arrived at, thereby change the outcome.

I  agree that the vote cannot be retaken (and that this would not be subject to a point of order, in case anyone is looking at that).

 

So, in this case, the statement of the result in the minutes could not be subject to a recount?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I  agree that the vote cannot be retaken (and that this would not be subject to a point of order, in case anyone is looking at that).

 

So, in this case, the statement of the result in the minutes could not be subject to a recount?

 

11 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Josh already answered this. If nothing was recorded other than the total number of votes cast, then there is literally nothing that could be recounted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Alexis Hunt said:

No, a point of order that the outcome of a motion was declared incorrectly, given the vote count, must be timely. See OI 2006-18.

 

 

No disagreement on that point.

 

The total number of votes cast is 97.  We do have more information than that.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J. J. said:

So, in this case, the statement of the result in the minutes could not be subject to a recount?

The statement of the result in the minutes, in and of itself, is not subject to a recount. A recount requires actually counting something. In the case of a ballot vote, that would be the ballots. In the case of a counted rising vote, that would be the tellers' tally sheets. If such tally sheets were not securely preserved (or if they never existed in the first place), there is nothing to count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

The statement of the result in the minutes, in and of itself, is not subject to a recount. A recount requires actually counting something. In the case of a ballot vote, that would be the ballots. In the case of a counted rising vote, that would be the tellers' tally sheets. If such tally sheets were not securely preserved (or if they never existed in the first place), there is nothing to count.

I can buy that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

You didn't yesterday.

I said I wasn't too sure.

 

I can make two arguments:

One, the assembly effectively suspended the rule that a 2/3 vote was needed.  When there was no objection, it was too late to do anything about it.

Two, this isn't a point of order, but a recount or a recapitulation, as there could be one for any other counted vote. 

Okay.  What is if this was a roll call, and that a roll call was in order and after the secretary typed up the minutes, he threw away his tally sheet, but, properly recording how each person voted in the minutes.  In the same situation, could that be recounted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J. J. said:

Okay.  What is if this was a roll call, and that a roll call was in order and after the secretary typed up the minutes, he threw away his tally sheet, but, properly recording how each person voted in the minutes.  In the same situation, could that be recounted?

I see no reason why not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I see no reason why not.

  So the recorded votes of how people voted, in the minutes, would be subject to a recount, but the recorded count could not be subject to a recount.

I am back to having that problem.

Perhaps it is related to this problem.  Without asking the assembly to vote twice on the same question by the same method, how do get a recount on a counted standing vote? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And perhaps that is because you cannot have a recount on this particular question.  You can, in some cases, ask the assembly to vote twice on the same question if that question is an election.  In this case, the question is not an election and you can not have a recall of a standing vote. 

 

Now, that I might be able to get behind. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Perhaps it is related to this problem.  Without asking the assembly to vote twice on the same question by the same method, how do get a recount on a counted standing vote?

You can't, if there's nothing to recount. Why is that a problem? Maybe you're asking what to do if the tellers are unsure of or lose track of the count before the result is announced. I think what happens in practice is that the result is not announced, and the chair just asks for a do-over as if the first vote never occurred.

If there was no problem during the actual count but the members simply do not have sufficient confidence in the result, then I would say that either the rules can be suspended for the purpose of taking another counted rising vote, or a motion could be made to take a ballot vote or a roll-call vote, but this must be done within the time limits for retaking or contesting the result of the vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

You can't, if there's nothing to recount. Why is that a problem? Maybe you're asking what to do if the tellers are unsure of or lose track of the count before the result is announced. I think what happens in practice is that the result is not announced, and the chair just asks for a do-over as if the first vote never occurred.

 

Well, because p. 445, l. 3 says there is something to recount, at least in an election.

On a standing vote where the is announced, in non-election cases, the society cannot get a recount, without suspending the rules.  The reason is that they would be vote twice on the same question by the same method.  The society could chose to vote by a different method, or could suspend the rules, as you noted.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Well, because p. 445, l. 3 says there is something to recount, at least in an election.

I'll have to check the Deluxe Edition, because the copy of RONR that I just looked at says no such thing. There is no difference in this regard between election votes and non-election votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I'll have to check the Deluxe Edition, because the copy of RONR that I just looked at says no such thing. There is no difference in this regard between election votes and non-election votes.

"Depending on the circumstances, the voting body may be able to order a recount if an election was conducted by ballot, roll call, or counted vote (p, 444, l. 35 -p. 445, ll. 1-3, internal cross references omitted, emphasis added)."

It is in there.  The paragraph also notes that it is also possible to vote on an election, by a different method, so that is not what it is referring to.  Under the rule for ballots, which would apply to a counted standing vote (p. 411, ll. 19-21), the recount can be ordered at the next session, if within  the quarterly time interval (p. 419, ll. 5-9).

If there is no difference, the secretary wrote down the announced result, then that announced result must be the thing that is recounted.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The internal cross-reference you omit is critical, because page 411 is where the conditions under which a recount can be taken of a counted vote are explained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alexis Hunt said:

The internal cross-reference you omit is critical, because page 411 is where the conditions under which a recount can be taken of a counted vote are explained.

I cited that below, but I thought it was confusing in the quote.

Page 411 says you can recount a standing, in accord with the rules on p. 419, which says that you can do it in the next session, if that session is within the quarterly time interval. 

I'm persuadable on this, but I can't come up with how to recount a standing vote (five minutes after the fact or three months after the fact).   The only thing I keep coming back to is the record of the count.

You could argue that the chair was just stating the result and that the result wasn't the actual vote.  You could make a similar argument about recording a roll call vote, however.   In recounting a roll call vote, you are not counting the actual vote, but a record of that vote; the actual vote occurs when the member articulates it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You skipped over the critical text "If written records are prepared in counting the vote, such as tellers' tally sheets, they are subject to the same retention and recount rules as ballots." By implication, these are the only parts of a standing vote subject to recount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Alexis Hunt said:

You skipped over the critical text "If written records are prepared in counting the vote, such as tellers' tally sheets, they are subject to the same retention and recount rules as ballots." By implication, these are the only parts of a standing vote subject to recount.

There is a written record.  The secretary (and possibly the president) wrote done the results.  The line does not say, "A tally sheet must be kept in order to have a recount.

This isn't an "evidentiary" question.  The secretary somehow had this recorded so it could be in the minutes. There is no question as to what the announced result was, just as there would be no question of what the result was in a ballot or roll call vote.  The secretary kept his notes from the meeting.   There is a contemporaneous record.

There are no "tellers" in this case (though there could be), but there are no tellers in a roll call vote, either.  That would just be the secretary recording how each member voted.

There is a written record of the count. 

You could say, "There must be a teller in order to have a recount," but that would exclude roll calls.

You could say, "There has to be a record of how each member voted to have a recount," but that would exclude ballots.

You could say, "There must be a record of individual votes cast to have a recount," but that would leave out counted voice votes, even if they had a tally sheet.  

Why would the secretary writing down the count be different that a teller writing down the count?  That is not a rhetorical question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...