Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Help with vote count error after meeting closed


Guest Clare F

Recommended Posts

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.

 

I think the second sentence is the chair's ruling that 18 is a sufficient number of votes, when a total of 29 votes are cast, to adopt a motion which requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think the second sentence is the chair's ruling that 18 is a sufficient number of votes, when a total of 29 votes are cast, to adopt a motion which requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption. 

 

Well, now you've lost me. :huh:

What wording would the chair had to have used in order for your hypothesis to come into consideration that a mistake of fact has been made such that there is a breach of a rule that could not be suspended?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly the wording used in your example.

 

OK, so then why is "the chair's ruling that 18 is a sufficient number of votes, when a total of 29 votes are cast, to adopt a motion which requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption" a fact that can be corrected at a later time rather than the application of a suspendable rule, the violation of which can be remedied only by a Point of Order raised at the time of the violation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so then why is "the chair's ruling that 18 is a sufficient number of votes, when a total of 29 votes are cast, to adopt a motion which requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption" a fact that can be corrected at a later time rather than the application of a suspendable rule, the violation of which can be remedied only by a Point of Order raised at the time of the violation?

 

In your example, the chair declared the vote adopted for the reason that, according to his declaration, 18 is two-thirds of 29. In doing so, he (and the assembly which didn't utter a peep) made a mistake of fact, and not a mistake of law.

 

I thought this had been said previously, and probably more than once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Mr. Martin if you can indulge me for my understanding, a motion to amend a bylaw does not fall into the exception rule (a) because it is an amendment even if it violates another bylaw that states how bylaws must be posted before the meeting? I understand a separate issue would arise under section (e) as another bylaw requires posting pre-meeting so all of the membership has access to the changes being brought to the floor protecting absentees. So when does the exception to section (a) kick in, a motion to bring a new bylaw to the floor that did not meet the criteria of another bylaw stating it must be posted pre-meeting or maybe a bylaw that says it must be brought to the board members pre-meeting to have it added to the agenda? I guess I am fuzzy on exception (a) as how it applies.

Thanks.

Also thank you all for this education, I have to educate my peers as obviously there is a major fault occurring with a recent vote, so I do appreciate all the input and explanations. I am sure it is boring to the well versed in parliamentary procedures, but I can honestly say that expert is not me, but I am learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The p. 251 a)  exception to the timeliness requirement arises from the CONTENT of an adopted motion.    Note two elements there:  the motion must have been adopted AND the content of the motion (what the motion says) must be in conflict with the bylaws for there to be a continuing breach.

 

The exception does not arise from (parliamentary) errors that were made during the PROCESS of adopting the motion  --  these errors have to be caught right away (via a timely point of order) to void the (just) adopted motion. 

 

The content of the motion to amend the bylaws cannot logically be in conflict with the bylaws because, in effect, that motion changes the bylaws to make them agree with what the motion says. The end result has no (internal) conflict.

 

Much of the debate in this thread (if I have it right) centers on whether "adopting" an amendment (a PROCESS question, strictly speaking) by a less than a 2/3 vote (when the bylaws require a 2/3 vote) is sufficiently serious as to actually cause a continuing breach  --  which would be another (new) exception not currently listed on p. 251 (or anywhere else in RONR).

 

At 2:00 AM I can't say if the debate has reached a resolution (Yes or No) as to whether there is an (unstated) exception  --  a continuing breach  --  when the "process error" of the preceding paragraph is a mathematical error in calculating whether a given vote does indeed reach the 2/3 threshold.

 

A failure to give proper notice is a "process error" that IS sufficiently grave that it will cause a continuing breach, but this is covered by rule p. 251 d) or e).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much of the debate in this thread (if I have it right) centers on whether "adopting" an amendment (a PROCESS question, strictly speaking) by a less than a 2/3 vote (when the bylaws require a 2/3 vote) is sufficiently serious as to actually cause a continuing breach  --  which would be another (new) exception not currently listed on p. 251 (or anywhere else in RONR).

 

At 2:00 AM I can't say if the debate has reached a resolution (Yes or No) as to whether there is an (unstated) exception  --  a continuing breach  --  when the "process error" of the preceding paragraph is a mathematical error in calculating whether a given vote does indeed reach the 2/3 threshold.

 

As noted in Official Interpretation 2006-18,  “… if a rule is suspendable, a point of order regarding its violation must be timely.” Rules prescribing the vote required for the adoption of a motion are suspendable rules of parliamentary law. As a consequence, if any question of order is to be raised concerning a violation of such a rule, it must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs.

 

If a two-thirds vote is required and the chair declares that “there are two thirds in the affirmative” when there are not two-thirds in the affirmative, he has made a mathematical error, not an error with respect to applicable parliamentary law. No point of order can be raised on the grounds that the chair was in error in his determination that a two-thirds vote was required for adoption.  A point of order can be raised that there were not two-thirds in the affirmative, and that, for this reason, the motion was not adopted. Such a point of order, however, is based upon a violation of the rules of mathematics, not upon the violation of any rule of parliamentary law. Rules of parliamentary law may be suspendable, but rules of mathematics are not rules of parliamentary law, and are not suspendable rules.

 

One way of looking at this is to say that, if the chair declares that a motion has been adopted when, for any reason, it has not been properly adopted, a point of order must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs, the only exceptions being those instances listed on page 251. I think this is too simplistic an approach, but there is, admittedly, something to be said for simplicity.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Martin if you can indulge me for my understanding, a motion to amend a bylaw does not fall into the exception rule (a) because it is an amendment even if it violates another bylaw that states how bylaws must be posted before the meeting? I understand a separate issue would arise under section (e) as another bylaw requires posting pre-meeting so all of the membership has access to the changes being brought to the floor protecting absentees. So when does the exception to section (a) kick in, a motion to bring a new bylaw to the floor that did not meet the criteria of another bylaw stating it must be posted pre-meeting or maybe a bylaw that says it must be brought to the board members pre-meeting to have it added to the agenda? I guess I am fuzzy on exception (a) as how it applies.

Thanks.

Also thank you all for this education, I have to educate my peers as obviously there is a major fault occurring with a recent vote, so I do appreciate all the input and explanations. I am sure it is boring to the well versed in parliamentary procedures, but I can honestly say that expert is not me, but I am learning.

No motion to amend the bylaws could run afoul of pg. 251 (a) unless the proposed amendment conflicts with an even higher level rule, such as a constitution or articles of incorporation. The motion itself must conflict with the bylaws for this rule to apply. An example of a pg. 251 (a) conflict would be if an ordinary main motion was adopted (not an amendment to the bylaws) providing that the President shall be reimbursed $500 for his expenses in attending the national convention, when the bylaws provide that such reimbursements shall not exceed $250.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on this morning's U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the most recent Obamacare/Scotuscare case, the plain wording of a rule apparently isn't of much significance and the overall purpose sought to be achieved by the rule is the most important factor.   Perhaps Mr. Honemann now has SCOTUS in his corner.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on this morning's U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the most recent Obamacare/Scotuscare case, the plain wording of a rule apparently isn't of much significance and the overall purpose sought to be achieved by the rule is the most important factor.   Perhaps Mr. Honemann now has SCOTUS in his corner.  :)

 

I have argued that the plain wording of a rule isn't of much significance? Which rule is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have argued that the plain wording of a rule isn't of much significance? Which rule is that?

 

Well, no, you didn't say that in so many words.  Tthat is what SCOTUS said this morning and I'm under the impression that you are taking the position in this thread that perhaps we should be interpreting RONR to allow for challenging the pronouncement of the chair on the outcome of a vote by means of a theory or ground not specifically listed in RONR as as constituting a continuing breach that would allow for challenging the outcome of a vote after the meeting.   I believe you are saying that perhaps there is a continuing breach that is not explicitly listed as one by RONR and that perhaps RONR should not be read as providing an exclusive list of items that constitute a continuing breach.  Am I mistaken about that?

 

I suppose I am relying primarily on this statement in post # 44, but I believe it is something you have been hinting at in other posts in this thread of 60 something posts:

 

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.

I believe Dr. Stackpole is wondering about the same thing based on this comment he made at post #  57:

 

Much of the debate in this thread (if I have it right) centers on whether "adopting" an amendment (a PROCESS question, strictly speaking) by a less than a 2/3 vote (when the bylaws require a 2/3 vote) is sufficiently serious as to actually cause a continuing breach  --  which would be another (new) exception not currently listed on p. 251 (or anywhere else in RONR).

 

At 2:00 AM I can't say if the debate has reached a resolution (Yes or No) as to whether there is an (unstated) exception  --  a continuing breach  --  when the "process error" of the preceding paragraph is a mathematical error in calculating whether a given vote does indeed reach the 2/3 threshold.

 

A failure to give proper notice is a "process error" that IS sufficiently grave that it will cause a continuing breach, but this is covered by rule p. 251 d) or e).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, no, you didn't say that in so many words. Tthat is what SCOTUS said this morning and I'm under the impression that you are taking the position in this thread that perhaps we should be interpreting RONR to allow for challenging the pronouncement of the chair on the outcome of a vote by means of a theory or ground not specifically listed in RONR as as constituting a continuing breach that would allow for challenging the outcome of a vote after the meeting. I believe you are saying that perhaps there is a continuing breach that is not explicitly listed as one by RONR and that perhaps RONR should not be read as providing an exclusive list of items that constitute a continuing breach. Am I mistaken about that?

I think we should be cautious of drawing parallels between interpretation of parliamentary rules and statutory interpretation by the courts.

Additionally, I completely agree with Mr. Honemann that there are cases where there can be a continuing breach even if it does not fit into one of the neat categories on pg. 251. For instance, nothing on pg. 251 discusses actions (other than main motions) which conflict with the rules or decisions of a superior body, such as a board's action which conflicts with the rules or decisions of the society, or actions of a local society conflicting with the rules or decisions of a parent society, but such decisions could very well be continuing breaches. I'm just not sure that this particular issue constitutes a continuing breach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can assure you that had we intended to say, on page 251, line 7, that "Instances of this kind occur only when:" we would have said so. We didn't. Josh is entirely right.

 

Since I am a strict constructionist to a fault, I was taken aback by the implied accusation that I have somehow indicated that the plain meaning of a rule in RONR isn't of much significance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

If a two-thirds vote is required and the chair declares that “there are two thirds in the affirmative” when there are not two-thirds in the affirmative, he has made a mathematical error, not an error with respect to applicable parliamentary law. No point of order can be raised on the grounds that the chair was in error in his determination that a two-thirds vote was required for adoption.  A point of order can be raised that there were not two-thirds in the affirmative, and that, for this reason, the motion was not adopted. Such a point of order, however, is based upon a violation of the rules of mathematics, not upon the violation of any rule of parliamentary law. Rules of parliamentary law may be suspendable, but rules of mathematics are not rules of parliamentary law, and are not suspendable rules.

...

 

 

I say that the point of order can be raised that the rules of parliamentary procedure permit the chair to say "there are two thirds in the affirmative," and to declare a motion adopted adopted on that basis, only when there are in fact (based on the count, or based on the chair's estimation of the uncounted vote) two thirds in the affirmative. (And when the chair does otherwise, I am pretty sure that the rules of mathematics remain completely intact.)

 

Anyway, maybe you need to come back and meet with the RONR authorship team to explain these things to me.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say that the point of order can be raised that the rules of parliamentary procedure permit the chair to say "there are two thirds in the affirmative," and to declare a motion adopted adopted on that basis, only when there are in fact (based on the count, or based on the chair's estimation of the uncounted vote) two thirds in the affirmative. (And when the chair does otherwise, I am pretty sure that the rules of mathematics remain completely intact.)

 

Anyway, maybe you need to come back and meet with the RONR authorship team to explain these things to me.  :)

 

And, I gather, you also say that this rule of parliamentary procedure which permits the chair to say "there are two thirds in the affirmative," and to declare a motion adopted on that basis, only when there are in fact (based on the count, or based on the chair's estimation of the uncounted vote) two thirds in the affirmative, is a rule which can be suspended. Since you're more familiar with this particular rule then am I, I'll take your word for it, although it does seem to smack of some sort of fundamental principle to me.

 

Anyway, since you're not convinced there's anything to what I've been yakking about, and Josh keeps saying over and over and over again that he's not convinced, I suspect there really may not be much to it, and so I shall pursue it no further. In other words, I ain't coming to no more of those dang meetings.  :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding something to bylaws with an erroneous count is unfair to absentees -- and in fact, to all members. Allowing something to be added to the bylaws with less than the required two-thirds creates another problem. To amend the bylaws to remove the item later will require a larger vote than the erroneous vote.

 

 

Wading through all this discussion isn't helpful to those who are trying to siphon out an answer. Something straight-forward would be helpful to the readers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding something to bylaws with an erroneous count is unfair to absentees -- and in fact, to all members. Allowing something to be added to the bylaws with less than the required two-thirds creates another problem. To amend the bylaws to remove the item later will require a larger vote than the erroneous vote.

 

Wading through all this discussion isn't helpful to those who are trying to siphon out an answer. Something straight-forward would be helpful to the readers.

I agree with Ann 100 percent.... on all counts.  We need a resolution to this.

 

It has always bothered me that an erroneous announcement of the presiding officer that a motion has failed....or worse yet, been adopted.... is binding unless objected to immediately by a point of order.  The example Ann gave is a perfect one:  It will take a larger vote to correct the mistake than the vote by which it was declared adopted.  This simply is not right and there should be a means to challenge it.  It seems to me it is as much a continuing breach as adopting something which conflicts with the bylaws.  It was adopted in violation of the bylaws.

 

Please, can we have all of the members of the authorship team weigh in on this?  Even Mr. Robert is a member of the forum, although he has never made a post.  Maybe it's time for one now.  And time for my friend Dan Seabold, who I saw lurking here the other day, to jump back in.

 

This really needs to be resolved.

 

Will Mr. Honemann please return to the meeting?   :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has always bothered me that an erroneous announcement of the presiding officer that a motion has failed....or worse yet, been adopted.... is binding unless objected to immediately by a point of order.  The example Ann gave is a perfect one:  It will take a larger vote to correct the mistake than the vote by which it was declared adopted.  This simply is not right and there should be a means to challenge it.  It seems to me it is as much a continuing breach as adopting something which conflicts with the bylaws.  It was adopted in violation of the bylaws.

 

What you seem to be saying is that members don't need to pay attention to what is happening during the meeting, but should feel free to constantly be raising points of order relating to questions already determined.

 

Th exceptions to the timeliness requirement for raising a point of order arise from the fact that the actions taken were null and void. But when the assembly has done something that was within its power to do (such as by suspending the rules), then a point of order must be raised at the time of the violation, or else the pertinent rules have, in effect, been waived.

 

This is the way things have been in parliamentary law for a very long time. You may wish for a different rule, but a different rule will have different problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Th exceptions to the timeliness requirement for raising a point of order arise from the fact that the actions taken were null and void. But when the assembly has done something that was within its power to do (such as by suspending the rules), then a point of order must be raised at the time of the violation, or else the pertinent rules have, in effect, been waived.

Since when can an assembly suspend a rule in the bylaws that a two thirds vote is required to adopt an amendment to the bylaws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when can an assembly suspend a rule in the bylaws that a two thirds vote is required to adopt an amendment to the bylaws?

 

See the last paragraph of the answer to http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_18

 

Whether that plain vanilla 2/3 vote requirement is in the bylaws or not doesn't matter.  It's a rule of order and a suspendable one at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you seem to be saying is that members don't need to pay attention to what is happening during the meeting, but should feel free to constantly be raising points of order relating to questions already determined.

 

Th exceptions to the timeliness requirement for raising a point of order arise from the fact that the actions taken were null and void. But when the assembly has done something that was within its power to do (such as by suspending the rules), then a point of order must be raised at the time of the violation, or else the pertinent rules have, in effect, been waived.

 

This is the way things have been in parliamentary law for a very long time. You may wish for a different rule, but a different rule will have different problems.

 

I think this is beyond any doubt correct, and if Mrs. (or Ms., or Ann :) ) Rempel and Mr. Brown carefully read what I have posted they must understand that I have not said anything else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The exception does not arise from (parliamentary) errors that were made during the PROCESS of adopting the motion -- these errors have to be caught right away (via a timely point of order) to void the (just) adopted motion.

I think the above statement from Mr. JD hits it home for me and is my approach to explain the problem and resolution to the question.

Thank you all for the help and education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...