Guest Terry Posted March 8, 2011 at 06:26 PM Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 at 06:26 PM Can a board member who voted "No" on an issue, later in the meeting recind his vote and asked that the minutes reflect that he abstained? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted March 8, 2011 at 06:29 PM Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 at 06:29 PM Can a board member who voted "No" on an issue, later in the meeting recind his vote and asked that the minutes reflect that he abstained?No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert B Fish Posted March 8, 2011 at 06:58 PM Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 at 06:58 PM Although he could ask that the assembly order the secretary to place a note in the minutes saying he now wishes he had abstained instead of voting 'No.' If the assembly is willing to put up with stuff like that, it is their choice. “Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid.” - John Wayne. -Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted March 8, 2011 at 07:01 PM Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 at 07:01 PM No.But what about p. 395 ll. 10-12, and p. 46 ll. 9-12? It seems there are some conditions under which the answer may be yes. Would they not apply here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 8, 2011 at 07:09 PM Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 at 07:09 PM But what about p. 395 ll. 10-12, and p. 46 ll. 9-12? It seems there are some conditions under which the answer may be yes. Would they not apply here?No. Unless I missed the word "uncast" somewhere in the text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted March 8, 2011 at 07:14 PM Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 at 07:14 PM No. Unless I missed the word "uncast" somewhere in the text.Ahhh..... so you can change your vote, but you can't "withdraw" your vote (ie abstain). An aye for a no, a no for an aye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 8, 2011 at 07:31 PM Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 at 07:31 PM Ahhh..... so you can change your vote, but you can't "withdraw" your vote (ie abstain). An aye for a no, a no for an aye.Oh, I think that a vote can be changed from a vote to an abstention (or from an abstention to a vote), but once the result of the vote has been announced by the chair, unanimous consent of the assembly to make the change must be sought immediately following such announcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted March 8, 2011 at 07:42 PM Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 at 07:42 PM Oh, I think that a vote can be changed from a vote to an abstention (or from an abstention to a vote), but once the result of the vote has been announced by the chair, unanimous consent of the assembly to make the change must be sought immediately following such announcement.So, the key here is in the words "After that" as both citations include. It's not merely at any point in time after the results are announced, but immediately after, and therefore before any other business (the next motion, next order of business, etc) has commenced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 8, 2011 at 07:50 PM Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 at 07:50 PM Oh, I think that a vote can be changed from a vote to an abstention (or from an abstention to a vote), but once the result of the vote has been announced by the chair, unanimous consent of the assembly to make the change must be sought immediately following such announcement.I agree with the parenthentic part so does it logically fit that the first part must be true as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 8, 2011 at 07:57 PM Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 at 07:57 PM I agree with the parenthentic part so does it logically fit that the first part must be true as well?Is there any reason why it shouldn't be true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 8, 2011 at 08:21 PM Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 at 08:21 PM Is there any reason why it shouldn't be true?I'm probably reading the passage too literally. As to your parenthetic remark, is the rule on p. 395 the only way to get that done, or can a motion to re-open the polls be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 9, 2011 at 10:09 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 at 10:09 PM So, the key here is in the words "After that" as both citations include. It's not merely at any point in time after the results are announced, but immediately after, and therefore before any other business (the next motion, next order of business, etc) has commenced?Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 9, 2011 at 11:32 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 at 11:32 PM Yes.It really couldn't be any other way, or there would never be finality on any vote. It would be absurd to disallow Reconsider at the end of the session, yet allow members to keep changing their votes individually (presumably back and forth) say, six months or more (years?) afterward.Virtually all other actions (apart from p.244 breaches) have a much-needed and short-term finality to them, and this would constitute a major and troublesome loophole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.