Town Meeting

[concernedcitizen]

At the most recent town meeting there was a very contentious debate on the funding of a cap. item.  After the lengthy debate, a voice vote was held and there did not appear to those in attendance that a 2/3 majority had been reached.  Seven voting members stood to question the vote and request a hand vote on, but the moderator failed to acknowledge those individuals and immediately put the meeting into recess.  Is there any recourse available to those whose rights were denied?

Thank you

[Josh Martin]

32 minutes ago, concernedcitizen said:

At the most recent town meeting there was a very contentious debate on the funding of a cap. item.  After the lengthy debate, a voice vote was held and there did not appear to those in attendance that a 2/3 majority had been reached.  Seven voting members stood to question the vote and request a hand vote on, but the moderator failed to acknowledge those individuals and immediately put the meeting into recess.  Is there any recourse available to those whose rights were denied?

Generally speaking, it is too late to raise a Point of Order regarding the issue you have described at this time. A member could have raised a Point of Order at the time (followed by an Appeal and further steps if necessary) regarding the chair’s failure to recognize the members moving for a Division of the Assembly, and/or regarding the chair’s declaration that the meeting was in recess (as it is the assembly, not the chair, who determines this).

The one potential complication I see is that you say this was a town meeting. If this means that the reason for the 2/3 vote requirement was a provision in applicable law, then that may change things.

[George Mervosh]

Just a couple of extra things:

1) "The simple rising vote (in which the number of members voting on each side is not counted) is used principally in cases where a voice vote has been taken with an inconclusive result, and as the normal method of voting on motions requiring a two-thirds vote for adoption (see Chair's Announcement of the Voting Result, etc., below). "  RONR (11th ed.),  p. 46  The members need to make sure the chair starts taking a rising vote routinely for motions requiring a 2/3 vote.

2) Your members seem to let the chair get away with quite a bit (considering 7 seemed to question his actions and letting him adjourn the meeting abruptly).  That needs to end as well.

Edited April 11, 2018 at 05:12 PM by George Mervosh

[concernedcitizen]

24 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

Just a couple of extra things:

1) "The simple rising vote (in which the number of members voting on each side is not counted) is used principally in cases where a voice vote has been taken with an inconclusive result, and as the normal method of voting on motions requiring a two-thirds vote for adoption (see Chair's Announcement of the Voting Result, etc., below). "  RONR (11th ed.),  p. 46  The members need to make sure the chair starts taking a rising vote routinely for motions requiring a 2/3 vote.

2) Your members seem to let the chair get away with quite a bit (considering 7 seemed to question his actions and letting him adjourn the meeting abruptly).  That needs to end as well.

The rising vote was taken on at least two other occasions during the meeting.  This was the only time that it was the rising vote was not acknowledged and a hand vote implemented.  The meeting was recorded and in reviewing the footage it appears that a voice vote is inconclusive.

[concernedcitizen]

33 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Generally speaking, it is too late to raise a Point of Order regarding the issue you have described at this time. A member could have raised a Point of Order at the time (followed by an Appeal and further steps if necessary) regarding the chair’s failure to recognize the members moving for a Division of the Assembly, and/or regarding the chair’s declaration that the meeting was in recess (as it is the assembly, not the chair, who determines this).

The one potential complication I see is that you say this was a town meeting. If this means that the reason for the 2/3 vote requirement was a provision in applicable law, then that may change things.

If a 2/3's vote was necessary by law, how does this change the situation and what if anything can be done?

[Richard Brown]

4 minutes ago, concernedcitizen said:

If a 2/3's vote was necessary by law, how does this change the situation and what if anything can be done?

If state law (or maybe even local law) requires a two thirds vote for the adoption of this type motion, the state law provision trumps (or may trump) the rule in RONR that the announcement of the chair is conclusive and that the motion is nonetheless adopted despite the chair's erroneous announcement.   This becomes a legal question regarding the effect of the state law and is beyond the scope of this forum.  You should check with an attorney, perhaps the city attorney, on that issue.