Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
George Mervosh

Does ordering a recount have other effects?

Recommended Posts

In the recapitulation thread thread, J.J. asks - "Perhaps a recount cannot "fix" an improper announcement from the chair? "

My response to J.J. was - "If the chair originally had stated there are 64 yes and 33 no votes, AND stated - "There are 2/3 in the the affirmative and the motion is adopted" and a recount is ordered, and the count remains unchanged, he can't say, after reporting the recount, that "There are less than 2/3 in the affirmative and the motion is not adopted"?  

Mr. Honemann directs us to a different thread (which I've read recently so I'm not going to be gone until next week).

In that "different thread", Mr. Honemann notes:  "The purpose of a recount is "to ensure that the count is precisely correct as reported" (RONR, p. 410, ll. 33-35, emphasis supplied). I can find no clear-cut indication in RONR that an effect of ordering a recount is to place the assembly back in 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, but I have no problem accepting this as being the case"

Mr. Honemann is speaking about a ruling as to the vote required for adoption in his reply, but my question is, if the chair got the vote required to adopt the motion correct, but made a math mistake, which the assembly did not catch at the time, can he make the correct announcement of the result after realizing the mathematical error at the conclusion of the recount?  I just don't see why not.  It may be that it's an unintended additional effect of ordering a recount, but not being able to correct the math error at all once the vote count is confirmed seems wrong to me.  

Thanks for your thoughts.

Edited by George Mervosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why wouldn't the Chair be able to correct themselves no matter how the error came to their attention?  "If the Chair notices a breach, he corrects the matter immediately" (p 249)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of a recount seems to be to count some vote results again.  

The answers that I am hearing seem to be contradictory.  In once case, it was suggested that the secretary's recording of the vote could be recounted if the vote was by roll call, but that the secretary's recording of the vote could not be recounted if the vote was by a counted.  Considering that the record could have created by the same person at the same meeting with the same voters, I have a problem with that.

I'm open to persuasion, but I will go, at this point, that recount can only change the results if the actual count changes.  A recount does not exist to correct a violation of the rules, especially when the assembly could suspend that rule in the first place.

If, in a counted voice vote, the chair checks his notes and says, "Sorry, the chair inverted the numbers in the announcement.  64 yes should be 46 yes," that could change the result.

I can persuaded on this and have changed my opinion several times, so go at it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

In the recapitulation thread thread, J.J. asks - "Perhaps a recount cannot "fix" an improper announcement from the chair? "

My response to J.J. was - "If the chair originally had stated there are 64 yes and 33 no votes, AND stated - "There are 2/3 in the the affirmative and the motion is adopted" and a recount is ordered, and the count remains unchanged, he can't say, after reporting the recount, that "There are less than 2/3 in the affirmative and the motion is not adopted"?  

Mr. Honemann directs us to a different thread (which I've read recently so I'm not going to be gone until next week).

In that "different thread", Mr. Honemann notes:  "The purpose of a recount is "to ensure that the count is precisely correct as reported" (RONR, p. 410, ll. 33-35, emphasis supplied). I can find no clear-cut indication in RONR that an effect of ordering a recount is to place the assembly back in 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, but I have no problem accepting this as being the case"

Mr. Honemann is speaking about a ruling as to the vote required for adoption in his reply, but my question is, if the chair got the vote required to adopt the motion correct, but made a math mistake, which the assembly did not catch at the time, can he make the correct announcement of the result after realizing the mathematical error at the conclusion of the recount?  I just don't see why not.  It may be that it's an unintended additional effect of ordering a recount, but not being able to correct the math error at all once the vote count is confirmed seems wrong to me.  

Thanks for your thoughts.

Well, then, chew on this one for awhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So George, now that you have refreshed your recollection as to what was said in that rather lengthy discussion, where do you stand?

In that thread, I suggested that, if a motion requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption and 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", a breach of a continuing nature has occurred, and a point of order can be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach. A few light-weights (such as Shmuel and Josh) seemed to disagree. What do you think?

I would think that the best way to obtain a determination of this question is by raising a point of order, and not by seeking a recount. But if a recount is ordered (because there is, in fact, something to recount), I would think that this would be a situation in which the chair could and should correct his mathematical error when announcing the result of the recounted vote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2017 at 7:16 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, then, chew on this one for awhile.

My teeth hurt, I've been chewing so much, but I did remember this thread.

11 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

So George, now that you have refreshed your recollection as to what was said in that rather lengthy discussion, where do you stand?

In that thread, I suggested that, if a motion requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption and 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", a breach of a continuing nature has occurred, and a point of order can be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach. A few light-weights (such as Shmuel and Josh) seemed to disagree. What do you think?

I would think that the best way to obtain a determination of this question is by raising a point of order, and not by seeking a recount. But if a recount is ordered (because there is, in fact, something to recount), I would think that this would be a situation in which the chair could and should correct his mathematical error when announcing the result of the recounted vote.

 

As noted in the other thread, there may be other kinds of breaches of a continuing nature that don't fit squarely into the neat package of continuing breaches found on p. 251 (but I honestly had not thought about that as a possibility before), but I think my position is very similar to your quoted position and Mr. Coronite's position in the other thread that there should be a way to correct this mathematical nightmare.  I can accept that a point of order might be a better method to accomplish this rather than a recount, especially if no one is really doubting the count but just trying to find a legitimate way to correct the error.  

You do realize having a different opinion than Josh and Shmuel is unwise, right? :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

 

As noted in the other thread, there may be other kinds of breaches of a continuing nature that don't fit squarely into the neat package of continuing breaches found on p. 251 (but I honestly had not thought about that as a possibility before), but I think my position is very similar to your quoted position and Mr. Coronite's position in the other thread that there should be a way to correct this mathematical nightmare.

 

Or, there could be remedies for different breaches?

First, the  assembly could suspend the rule that the 2/3 vote was needed, provided that it didn't involve another p. 251 violation.  Announcing that the voice vote was "64 yes and 33 no votes" and that the motion was adopted would not create a continuing breach.  Likewise if the vote was stated as "33 yes and 64 no" and that the motion was adopted, this would not create a continuing breach, either.

Today, and I can still be persuaded, I will say that if a vote can be counted, it can be recounted or at least recapitulated.  In either of the cases, whether or not the chair stated it as a 2/3 vote, the vote can be recounted by the assembly and the announcement can be corrected.  I base this on p. 446, ll. 4-7. 

If the assembly feels that it can rely on the accuracy of the count and the announcement, as recorded in the minutes or written on a scrap of paper, it may correct the announcement. 

In a set of given circumstances, Society A may feel that it is fine to rely on whatever information exists, and recount the vote and change the determination.  In the same circumstances, Society B may decide that the information is not sufficient to change the determination.

 

Share this post


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

Or, there could be remedies for different breaches?

First, the  assembly could suspend the rule that the 2/3 vote was needed, provided that it didn't involve another p. 251 violation.  Announcing that the voice vote was "64 yes and 33 no votes" and that the motion was adopted would not create a continuing breach.  Likewise if the vote was stated as "33 yes and 64 no" and that the motion was adopted, this would not create a continuing breach, either.

Today, and I can still be persuaded, I will say that if a vote can be counted, it can be recounted or at least recapitulated.  In either of the cases, whether or not the chair stated it as a 2/3 vote, the vote can be recounted by the assembly and the announcement can be corrected.  I base this on p. 446, ll. 4-7. 

If the assembly feels that it can rely on the accuracy of the count and the announcement, as recorded in the minutes or written on a scrap of paper, it may correct the announcement. 

In a set of given circumstances, Society A may feel that it is fine to rely on whatever information exists, and recount the vote and change the determination.  In the same circumstances, Society B may decide that the information is not sufficient to change the determination.

 

Can this scenario apply to the immediate affect of a bylaw amendment where the chair errors as described throughout this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Guest Interested said:

Can this scenario apply to the immediate affect of a bylaw amendment where the chair errors as described throughout this thread?

A point of order could, if this was a breach of a continuing nature.

I will say, yes, provided the recount/recapitulation is done timely, as per pp. 418-19.  .

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...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  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

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×