Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Help with vote count error after meeting closed


Guest Clare F

Recommended Posts

Then what rule has been breached when the chair announces that "There are 18 votes in the affirmative and 11 votes in the negative. There are two thirds in the affirmative, and the motion is adopted."

 

But as I understand it, the chair simply said "There are 18 votes in the affirmative, and 11 votes in the negative.  The ayes have it, and the motion is adopted."

 

In that case the rule that was violated was not one of the rules of multiplication, but rather the one of the bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

But as I understand it, the chair simply said "There are 18 votes in the affirmative, and 11 votes in the negative.  The ayes have it, and the motion is adopted."

 

In that case the rule that was violated was not one of the rules of multiplication, but rather the one of the bylaws.

 

As I said way back in post #7, I'm not yet sure what rule was violated. Was it the rule that a two-thirds vote was required for adoption, or was it the rule that says that 18 is not two-thirds of 29.

 

Suppose it was the latter. Is there a continuing breach? No one has as yet challenged Mr. Brown's assertion that the latter rule cannot be suspended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess this is a stumper then. We were told and I read that the by-laws state 2/3 of the votes in the affirmative are required to pass the motion to change a by-law. Since the requirement was 19.3 votes (sorry you are correct and I should have said 2 votes short to bring it to 20), according to the by-laws the vote should not have passed (29 total votes, 18 yes 11 no) if someone was adhering to the by-laws. Since it did pass because of the clerks error at the time of the vote and not adhering to the by-laws, and all board members and regular members in the audience did not make a point of order at any time, where does that leave us. The example given in post #2 above is nearly identical. If it is an ongoing breech what is the point of a timely point of order if one could argue the error is still ongoing. The question that needs answering is when does that window close to make a timely point of order and why in the example in post #2 was that not brought up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess this is a stumper then. We were told and I read that the by-laws state 2/3 of the votes in the affirmative are required to pass the motion to change a by-law. Since the requirement was 19.3 votes (sorry you are correct and I should have said 2 votes short to bring it to 20), according to the by-laws the vote should not have passed (29 total votes, 18 yes 11 no) if someone was adhering to the by-laws. Since it did pass because of the clerks error at the time of the vote and not adhering to the by-laws, and all board members and regular members in the audience did not make a point of order at any time, where does that leave us. The example given in post #2 above is nearly identical. If it is an ongoing breech what is the point of a timely point of order if one could argue the error is still ongoing. The question that needs answering is when does that window close to make a timely point of order and why in the example in post #2 was that not brought up.

 

It seems that there may be some difference (I am not entirely convinced that this is the case) depending upon why the chair declared the motion adopted. If he declared the motion adopted because he believed that the motion required only a majority vote for its adoption, instead of a 2/3 vote, then this is clearly not a continuing breach and it is much too late to raise a Point of Order, as explained in Official Interpretation 2006-18.

 

On the other hand, if the chair knew that a 2/3 vote was required but was, for some reason, under the impression that 18 is 2/3 of 29, then the situation is not clearly addressed by OI 2006-18. In my opinion, there still is not a continuing breach.

 

As I said way back in post #7, I'm not yet sure what rule was violated. Was it the rule that a two-thirds vote was required for adoption, or was it the rule that says that 18 is not two-thirds of 29.

 

Suppose it was the latter. Is there a continuing breach? No one has as yet challenged Mr. Brown's assertion that the latter rule cannot be suspended.

 

Let me take another stab at this. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the rule which was violated was "the rule that says that 18 is not two-thirds of 29." I am in complete agreement that such a rule cannot be suspended, any more than the society can "suspend" the other rules of mathematics. Nonetheless, such a violation does not appear to constitute a continuing breach. It does not fall under any of the categories of such breaches discussed in RONR, 11th ed., pg. 251.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can one violate the "rule" that 18 is not two-thirds of 29?  If a rule prohibits something (18 being 2/3's of 29) it seems violating it would mean DOING what's prohibited. IOW, making 18 to be 2/3's of 29, which cannot be done.  Is "18 is not 2/3's of 29" a rule? Or just a fact?  How can one violate a fact?

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems the rule that is being violated is the bylaw that requires a 2/3 vote to pass the motion.

 

No one has as yet challenged Mr. Brown's assertion that the latter rule cannot be suspended.

 

 

Rules were made to be broken; this cannot be broken/violated. It's not a rule! It's a fact!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me take another stab at this. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the rule which was violated was "the rule that says that 18 is not two-thirds of 29." I am in complete agreement that such a rule cannot be suspended, any more than the society can "suspend" the other rules of mathematics. Nonetheless, such a violation does not appear to constitute a continuing breach.

 

Who said it constituted a continuing breach?

 

It's nonsense to even talk about "violating" it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am under the assumption of Mr. Martin as I asked a fellow board member (not the clerk which was obviously a mistake on my part) if it was a simple majority or was a 2/3 needed; As a new board member I honestly did not know. I was told a simple majority was needed and I can only assume all board members and the chair that gaveled the vote as passed also made the wrong assumption that it was a simple majority needed. It wasn't till several weeks had passed that the clerk (who was at the meeting and took the tally of the counted ballots) found the error that 2/3 was needed as stated in the current voting by-laws.

Mr. Martin, I read p 251 section 'a' in which a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or constitution). Sections 3-7 of that page has me wondering and I think what others are bringing up on this page is the continuing nature of the breech in which case a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breech. Since the by-law change is under the exception rule, is the breech continuing now because a 2/3 vote was needed? Maybe what I am understanding from you is that since all voting board and regular members "assumed" only a simple majority vote was needed, then they knowingly were not violating the by-laws so it doesn't fall under the exception rules stated on page 251.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Martin, I read p 251 section 'a' in which a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or constitution). Sections 3-7 of that page has me wondering and I think what others are bringing up on this page is the continuing nature of the breech in which case a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breech. Since the by-law change is under the exception rule, is the breech continuing now because a 2/3 vote was needed? Maybe what I am understanding from you is that since all voting board and regular members "assumed" only a simple majority vote was needed, then they knowingly were not violating the by-laws so it doesn't fall under the exception rules stated on page 251.

 

The rule of pg. 251 (a) is not applicable here. That applies only if the motion itself conflicts with the bylaws - which can't possibly be an issue here since the motion was an amendment to the bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I understand now. So even though the by-laws states a 2/3 requirement is needed to pass a by-law change, it is not applicable here because the motion to amend another by-law was brought to the floor in a valid manner and was voted upon by the membership and validated as passed during an open session and that by-law change did not conflict with an pre-existing by-law. The error would have needed to be brought to the floor as a point of order at the time the vote count was made public to the membership.

Ok, going to take a crack at understanding how a motion could be considered invalid because it conflicted with another by-law.

Example of a ongoing breech would be a by-law that states only by-law changes can be brought to the floor if a written petition was given to the board 4 weeks before a meeting and was placed in a publication newsletter before an annual meeting so all members could see the proposed changes. If instead a member brought to the floor a by-law change and that by-law change was approved by the membership as passed, but that by-law change shouldn't have ever been allowed to the floor since it did not attain the required 4 week notice and publication in a newsletter before an annual meeting as stated in a by-law requirement to bring amendments to the floor. In this example it is considered an ongoing breech because the motion to amend a by-law, even though it passed a vote of the membership, should have never been brought to the floor because it violated another by-law requiring due notice and publication before an annual meeting. In this case a point of order can be made at anytime because it is considering an ongoing breech; A motion was made on the floor that violated another by-law on how a motion can be brought to the floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that there may be some difference (I am not entirely convinced that this is the case) depending upon why the chair declared the motion adopted. If he declared the motion adopted because he believed that the motion required only a majority vote for its adoption, instead of a 2/3 vote, then this is clearly not a continuing breach and it is much too late to raise a Point of Order, as explained in Official Interpretation 2006-18.

 

On the other hand, if the chair knew that a 2/3 vote was required but was, for some reason, under the impression that 18 is 2/3 of 29, then the situation is not clearly addressed by OI 2006-18. In my opinion, there still is not a continuing breach.

 

I think that 1st Church, in post #34, highlights the relevant point very nicely. There is a difference between making a mistake of law (in this case parliamentary law) and making a mistake of fact.

 

If the chair in the instant case declared the motion adopted for the reason that it required only a majority vote for its adoption, he (and the assembly) made a mistake of law. On the other hand, if he declared the vote adopted for the reason that 18 is two-thirds of 29, he (and the assembly) made a mistake of fact.

 

Let me take another stab at this. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the rule which was violated was "the rule that says that 18 is not two-thirds of 29." I am in complete agreement that such a rule cannot be suspended, any more than the society can "suspend" the other rules of mathematics. Nonetheless, such a violation does not appear to constitute a continuing breach. It does not fall under any of the categories of such breaches discussed in RONR, 11th ed., pg. 251.

 

I agree that if the chair makes a mistake of this kind it does not appear to fall under any of the categories of breaches listed on page 251. However, I do not think that this listing is intended to be exhaustive. Furthermore, I think it fair to say that, as a general rule, the violation of any rule (or fact, if you prefer) which cannot be suspended will give rise to a continuing breach -- this being a consequence of the close correlation between rules which can or cannot be suspended and rules which, if violated, will or will not give rise to a continuing breach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Example of a ongoing breech would be a by-law that states only by-law changes can be brought to the floor if a written petition was given to the board 4 weeks before a meeting and was placed in a publication newsletter before an annual meeting so all members could see the proposed changes. If instead a member brought to the floor a by-law change and that by-law change was approved by the membership as passed, but that by-law change shouldn't have ever been allowed to the floor since it did not attain the required 4 week notice and publication in a newsletter before an annual meeting as stated in a by-law requirement to bring amendments to the floor. In this example it is considered an ongoing breech because the motion to amend a by-law, even though it passed a vote of the membership, should have never been brought to the floor because it violated another by-law requiring due notice and publication before an annual meeting. In this case a point of order can be made at anytime because it is considering an ongoing breech; A motion was made on the floor that violated another by-law on how a motion can be brought to the floor.

Again, the rule of pg. 251 (a) is not applicable here. That applies only if the motion itself conflicts with the bylaws, and is not applicable if the motion is amending the bylaws. If the process for adopting the motion is in violation of the bylaws, that's a separate issue.

The situation you describe is nonetheless a continuing breach, but it is a pg. 251 (e) violation. Rules providing for previous notice are rules protecting absentees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that 1st Church, in post #34, highlights the relevant point very nicely. There is a difference between making a mistake of law (in this case parliamentary law) and making a mistake of fact.

 

If the chair in the instant case declared the motion adopted for the reason that it required only a majority vote for its adoption, he (and the assembly) made a mistake of law. On the other hand, if he declared the vote adopted for the reason that 18 is two-thirds of 29, he (and the assembly) made a mistake of fact.

 

 

I agree that if the chair makes a mistake of this kind it does not appear to fall under any of the categories of breaches listed on page 251. However, I do not think that this listing is intended to be exhaustive. Furthermore, I think it fair to say that, as a general rule, the violation of any rule (or fact, if you prefer) which cannot be suspended will give rise to a continuing breach -- this being a consequence of the close correlation between rules which can or cannot be suspended and rules which, if violated, will or will not give rise to a continuing breach.

Okay, now we are getting to the question I have been wondering about!!  

 

Let's see if I have got this right as to what you believe the correct application of RONR would be in the following situations:

 

1.  If the chairman incorrectly states that a bylaw amendment has been adopted because he erroneously believes that it only requires a majority vote when it actually requires a two thirds vote, that is a "mistake of law" and a timely point of order must be raised. 

 

2. However, if he knows it requires a two thirds vote, but he gets his math wrong and erroneously states that "two thirds having voted in the affirmative, the amendment is adopted", that constitutes a non-suspendable mistake of fact and constitutes a continuing breach that can be raised at any time?

 

This now leads me to more questions:

 

3.  If the chairman or the tellers get the vote count wrong but the math right and, due to the mistake in the vote count, the chairman erroneously declares that the motion has been lost (or adopted),  what is the situation?  (A) Does it require a timely point of order that the count is wrong?   (  B ) Is it subject to a motion for a recount subject to the time limits for a recount?   ( C ) Is it a mistake of fact that constitutes a continuing breach that is subject to a point of order at any time?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3.  If the chairman or the tellers get the vote count wrong but the math right and, due to the mistake in the vote count, the chairman erroneously declares that the motion has been lost (or adopted),  what is the situation?  (A) Does it require a timely point of order that the count is wrong?   (  B ) Is it subject to a motion for a recount subject to the time limits for a recount?   ( C ) Is it a mistake of fact that constitutes a continuing breach that is subject to a point of order at any time?    

 

Late to the dance and a bit lost after 46 posts, as long as a recount can still be done the member just moves for it.  If the recount determines the initial count was wrong the proper result can be announced.   I don't know how a member can claim the count is wrong and have it stick if there's no possibility of a recount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. However, if he knows it requires a two thirds vote, but he gets his math wrong and erroneously states that "two thirds having voted in the affirmative, the amendment is adopted", that constitutes a non-suspendable mistake of fact and constitutes a continuing breach that can be raised at any time?

Even if we accept that this is a continuing breach (and I still don't know that I'm convinced), it seems extremely ill-advised to permit a Point of Order regarding a mistake of fact to be raised indefinitely, perhaps even years later. Perhaps the timeline could be similar to that of a recount.

3. If the chairman or the tellers get the vote count wrong but the math right and, due to the mistake in the vote count, the chairman erroneously declares that the motion has been lost (or adopted), what is the situation? (A) Does it require a timely point of order that the count is wrong? ( B ) Is it subject to a motion for a recount subject to the time limits for a recount? ( C ) Is it a mistake of fact that constitutes a continuing breach that is subject to a point of order at any time?

It is subject to a motion for a recount (within the time limits for a recount).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if we accept that this is a continuing breach (and I still don't know that I'm convinced), it seems extremely ill-advised to permit a Point of Order regarding a mistake of fact to be raised indefinitely, perhaps even years later. Perhaps the timeline could be similar to that of a recount.

 

I'm not 100% convinced that it's right either. Nothing in RONR specifically says so, and my opinion is based solely upon my understanding of the underlying principles upon which the existing rules in this regard are based. If it is a continuing breach, however, I don't know why the time limitation for raising a point of order concerning it should be any different than it is for raising points of order with respect to any of the other types of continuing breaches. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the purpose of this scenario, maybe it's best to consider "facts" to be those things, such as the number of votes cast on each side of a question, that require empirical investigation, and rules to be those things that are applied to the facts according to analytical methods determined in advance.

 

Suppose the chair announces:

"There are 18 in the affirmative and 11 in the negative. There are two thirds in the affirmative and the motion is adopted."

 

The first sentence is a statement of fact. No one in the assembly can question it without asking for an empirical investigation or pointing out that it contradicts the facts stated in the tellers' report.

 

The second sentence, however, is an application (or a misapplication) of the rules for determining whether a particular vote constitutes a two-thirds vote and the rules for determining what the standard for adoption of the motion is. I don't see a clear basis, or the benefit from, attempting to distinguish between these two types of rules, no matter how iron-clad the correct application seems to be. (Edited to add:) Any member who is paying attention can instantly question the result without knowledge of other empirical facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...