parlimentarian error

[Guest Alice]

Does Roberts Rules Of Order speak to whether or not business can be re-visited after the close of business, outside of and before another meeting? I belong to an organization whose parliamentarian authority states in writing, that Robert's Rules of Order governs meetings in matters not covered by our organization's rules. Our organization's rules state in writing that a proposed amendment is adopted if it has been approved by 2/3 vote of those voting. Following a recent meeting, a controversy arose. During said meeting, our parliamentarian, after a vote, mistakenly announced that the just-voted on proposed amendment was approved. In reality, the proposed amendment failed because it did not receive 2/3 vote of those voting. When the parliamentarian was told one day after, about her error made during prior day's meeting, she ruled in the organization member appeal, that Roberts Rules of Order governed in this case: She stated that since the parliamentarian announcement error was not caught before the close of business during the meeting, the mistake could not be re-visited, or corrected, according to Roberts Rules of Order. She declared, therefore that the proposed said amendment must stand as adopted, despite its actual failure to receive 2/3 votes required to approve it as adopted.  

Has Roberts Rules of Order been used correctly in this situation? Would you please site the page and reference either way, supporting yes or no. Thank you. Lastly, our organization rules do not address in writing, whether parliamentarian mistakes made during a meeting can corrected outside of a business meeting.

 

[George Mervosh]

The parliamentarian should never be the one announcing if a motion was adopted or defeated.   That's the presiding officer's job.  

Was she unaware of the fact that it took a 2/3 vote to adopt the motion?

[Josh Martin]

52 minutes ago, Guest Alice said:

Does Roberts Rules Of Order speak to whether or not business can be re-visited after the close of business, outside of and before another meeting? I belong to an organization whose parliamentarian authority states in writing, that Robert's Rules of Order governs meetings in matters not covered by our organization's rules. Our organization's rules state in writing that a proposed amendment is adopted if it has been approved by 2/3 vote of those voting. Following a recent meeting, a controversy arose. During said meeting, our parliamentarian, after a vote, mistakenly announced that the just-voted on proposed amendment was approved. In reality, the proposed amendment failed because it did not receive 2/3 vote of those voting. When the parliamentarian was told one day after, about her error made during prior day's meeting, she ruled in the organization member appeal, that Roberts Rules of Order governed in this case: She stated that since the parliamentarian announcement error was not caught before the close of business during the meeting, the mistake could not be re-visited, or corrected, according to Roberts Rules of Order. She declared, therefore that the proposed said amendment must stand as adopted, despite its actual failure to receive 2/3 votes required to approve it as adopted.  

Has Roberts Rules of Order been used correctly in this situation? Would you please site the page and reference either way, supporting yes or no. Thank you. Lastly, our organization rules do not address in writing, whether parliamentarian mistakes made during a meeting can corrected outside of a business meeting.

The parliamentarian is correct that it is too late to fix this mistake. See Official Interpretation 2006-18 and RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 250-251. In fact, I think the parliamentarian was too generous to say that a Point of Order could have been raised until the end of the meeting. The point would have had to be raised promptly after the announcement of the result of the vote.

Additionally, even if a Point of Order was still timely (due to a continuing breach), these errors may never be corrected outside of a meeting. They may only be raised during a meeting.

Finally, for future reference, the chair should be the one declaring whether a motion is adopted.

[jstackpo]

In the order of your explicit questions....

1)   re-visit?  No. "Business" can take place in business meetings, only.

2)  Correctly?  yes.  page 250, line 17ff.  Points of order need to be raised immediately, with a few exceptions, none of which apply in this case.

[Richard Brown]

Guest Alice: two points.

First, as others have said, unless you have a customized rule to the contrary, parliamentarians don't make rulings. Parliamentarians advise. The presiding officer makes rulings. The chair can accept or reject the advice of the parliamentarian.

Second, the bylaw amendment that was erroneously declared adopted can be removed by following the procedure in the bylaws for amending the bylaws ... provided you have the two thirds vote to do it. If it was a close vote, you might be stuck with it. 

[J. J.]

The only way out of it is to amend the bylaws by striking out that amendment. 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

10 hours ago, Guest Alice said:

Has Roberts Rules of Order been used correctly in this situation? Would you please site the page and reference either way, supporting yes or no.

See "Duties of the Parliamentarian" in RONR 11th ed, pp. 466-467.

[SaintCad]

Hold on a second.

Did the presiding officer ever announce the results of the vote?  If not, I think there are some here that would claim the motion in iimbo until the results are announced by the Chair.

[George Mervosh]

On 9/30/2017 at 0:56 PM, SaintCad said:

Hold on a second.

Did the presiding officer ever announce the results of the vote?  If not, I think there are some here that would claim the motion in iimbo until the results are announced by the Chair.

So far no one.

[SaintCad]

1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

So far no one.

I'm not too sure.  Isn't there a thread around here discussing if a chair announced the results of a vote that would carry a motion but does not say the motion carried that the motion has not in fact carried nor has it failed?