voting

[Guest lazyyp]

If a vote was taken 10 years ago and 5 people out of 24 did not get a chance to vote can you go back and get those votes?

[Chris Harrison]

What do you mean that the 5 people didn't get a chance to vote? Unless these 5 were denied their right to vote and their votes could have affected the results the vote stands. Also, even if the vote could have been declared null and void do you all REALLY want to challenge something that was done 10 years ago?

[Guest Guest]

5 people were not at the meeting and never given the chance to vote, they were supposed to have been contacted and never were. Someone tumbled to the fact that a bylaw change hadn't passed because of not enough votes (10 years later). It was never contested until now.

[Guest Edgar]

5 people were not at the meeting and never given the chance to vote, they were supposed to have been contacted and never were. Someone tumbled to the fact that a bylaw change hadn't passed because of not enough votes (10 years later).

There are (or may be) two (unrelated?) issues.

1. Were the missing 5 never notified of the meeting or was it that they just didn't attend?

2. What do you mean by "not enough votes"?

[David A Foulkes]

Someone tumbled to the fact that a bylaw change hadn't passed because of not enough votes (10 years later). It was never contested until now.

Not quite sure what "tumbled to the fact" means, although Mr. Tesser might use that colloquial phrase now and then. But what I think you're saying is that a bylaw amendment from 10 years ago did not pass due to the voting threshold required not being met, but your organization has spent the last 10 years operating as though it had, since it was never contested until now. If that's not it, then I haven't tumbled to your facts yet.

[Guest lazyyp]

They were aware of the meeting, I don't think there was an adgenda sent out as to what was to be voted on. In this place you need a 90% vote to pass anything. There were 19 votes for and none against at the meeting.the requirement would have been 22 of 24 to pass. It never came up in any of the following meetings that it had not passed. Some new people moved in to the sub division and have contested the rule. You are correct they have been living by it for 10 yrs. The 5 people that didn't vote have since been contacted and have voted for the rule change. So can we still use those votes

[Guest Edgar]

Not quite sure what "tumbled to the fact" means . . .

It's new to me too but apparently it's slang:

tumble to: (informal) come to understand; realize: he's tumbled to the fact that he was deceived.

[Chris Harrison]

Unless it can be proven that:

1) These five members were not at the meeting by not being notified of the meeting or prohibited from attending, and

2) Their votes could have affected the results, and

3) The vote was taken in a manner that the results were recorded in the minutes (such as by ballot, counted vote, or Roll Call vote) to demonstrate that those 5 votes could have affected the results.

it would be too late to challenge the vote.

[Guest Edgar]

The 5 people that didn't vote have since been contacted and have voted for the rule change. So can we still use those votes

No.

And make sure your "90% vote" doesn't mean "90% of those who were voting", not 90% of the membership. Because it seems you got a 100% vote of those who voted.

And since it looks like everyone's in favor of this amendment, it would do no harm to "ratify" the previous adoption.

[Chris Harrison]

They were aware of the meeting, I don't think there was an adgenda sent out as to what was to be voted on

And why didn't they attend the meeting? There is no requirement under RONR that the members be told in advance what will be considered (with the exception of Special Meetings or the item requires previous notice). If the member wants to have a say in what the assembly decides on during the meeting they need to attend the meeting. If they choose not to attend then they have agreed to allow the members who were at the meeting to make the decisions for them.

[Guest lazyyp]

The Minutes state" approved by all 19 votes present. Proposal will be mailed to the members not present to seed to achieve 90% approval (22 votes) required for the bylaw change" It is a 90% vote of the membership. To my knowledge this never happened.

[Guest lazyyp]

Because they live out of State. This is a fishing camp.

[Chris Harrison]

Because they live out of State. This is a fishing camp.

Fair enough but that still doesn't change things. I would assume that these five knew that these issues exist when they became members or when they chose to move out of State. They have to make the choice of taking the time and spending the money to attend the meetings and have their say or stay home save time and money and not have their say and take their chances that something would come up that they wouldn't like. They chose to stay home and something they didn't like ended up happening. It is unfortunate but choices do have consequences and this time they got the sharp end of the hook.

Why not do it correctly this time and follow the amendment procedures in the bylaws and properly adopt this amendment?

[David A Foulkes]

How many members are there now? Would a vote to ratify pass? Would the amendment pass now if it were moved again today?

And are you unwaveringly sure the vote to amend the bylaws is 90% of the entire membership, not just those present and voting?

[Guest lazyyp]

It would never pass now. There are only 3 out of 24 that live here year around. It would never pass now, as it takes power away from the board, which now has authority to do most anything they want. The 2001 vote required that accesments require 2/3 vote of the membership. Thanks for your help.

[Trina]

The Minutes state" approved by all 19 votes present. Proposal will be mailed to the members not present to seed to achieve 90% approval (22 votes) required for the bylaw change" It is a 90% vote of the membership. To my knowledge this never happened.

I posted a few minutes ago, but then deleted what I posted. I initially thought that a violation of the rules for bylaws amendment (not getting an affirmative vote from 90% of the membership ten years ago) would have rendered the adoption of the amendment null and void. However, if the five absent members were actually properly notified of the meeting, then there wasn't a violation of the rights of absentees. A point of order about not having a high enough proportion of the votes would have had to be timely.

However, the bolded text above suggests that the amendment was not actually declared to be adopted at the meeting -- instead, the decision was declared to be incomplete, pending an attempt to contact absent members. We don't know if that type of attempt to collect additional votes was sanctioned by the bylaws (it certainly isn't proper under the rules in RONR). The original poster doesn't think the decision (to try to collect additional votes) was carried out. Thus, I think it could be argued that the bylaws amendment was never adopted... because it was never declared to be adopted. That (paraphrasing what lazyyp says) seems to be what the minutes reflect.

What you (you individually, and you the organization) can do about it at this point raises a different set of questions. And, no, you can't try to collect additional votes today to add to the vote count from ten years ago.

[Dan Honemann]

I posted a few minutes ago, but then deleted what I posted. I initially thought that a violation of the rules for bylaws amendment (not getting an affirmative vote from 90% of the membership ten years ago) would have rendered the adoption of the amendment null and void. However, if the five absent members were actually properly notified of the meeting, then there wasn't a violation of the rights of absentees. A point of order about not having a high enough proportion of the votes would have had to be timely.

However, the bolded text above suggests that the amendment was not actually declared to be adopted at the meeting -- instead, the decision was declared to be incomplete, pending an attempt to contact absent members. We don't know if that type of attempt to collect additional votes was sanctioned by the bylaws (it certainly isn't proper under the rules in RONR). The original poster doesn't think the decision (to try to collect additional votes) was carried out. Thus, I think it could be argued that the bylaws amendment was never adopted... because it was never declared to be adopted. That (paraphrasing what lazyyp says) seems to be what the minutes reflect.

What you (you individually, and you the organization) can do about it at this point raises a different set of questions. And, no, you can't try to collect additional votes today to add to the vote count from ten years ago.

Thank you, Trina. This focuses nicely on the main question.

But even if the chair had declared the amendment adopted, if the affirmative vote of 90% of the total membership was, in fact, required for adoption, and less than 90% were in attendance, wouldn't the rights of absentees have been violated?

[SaintCad]

I don't have RONR handy, but when a session is over, isn't everything on the table automatically cleared off. So if there were a motion that was not disposed of while trying to contact these 5 people, when the session (I assume annual) ended, the motion hade not passed and was dismissed?

[Guest Edgar]

I don't have RONR handy, but when a session is over, isn't everything on the table automatically cleared off.

Well, there is such a thing as unfinished business.

And I'm not sure the phrase "on the table" is appropriate in this instance.

[David A Foulkes]

I don't have RONR handy, but when a session is over, isn't everything on the table automatically cleared off. So if there were a motion that was not disposed of while trying to contact these 5 people, when the session (I assume annual) ended, the motion hade not passed and was dismissed?

The problem here, the 10 year time lag notwithstanding, is the status of the question. It does not appear, from the facts given so far, that the chair ever declared the motion to amend the bylaws either adopted or defeated. It "seems" that the chair knew that 19 affirmative votes (the entire assembly at the time) was not enough to pass, and the intent was to contact 5 absent members in hopes of getting at least 3 more affirmative votes to adopt the motion. As improper as this would have been, the result seems to be that the membership has been going along for 10 years as though the bylaw were in fact adopted.

The minutes seem to clearly demonstrate that was not the case, so it seems clear that the bylaw was never adopted. What the ramifications are of any actions taken under the belief that it was adopted is anyone's guess at this point. Given a Point of Order at a meeting in this regard, I would hope it be ruled well taken, in light of the (I'm going to go with) "clear and convincing proof" of the motion's status 10 years ago.

Glad I'm not a member.

[SaintCad]

Well, there is such a thing as unfinished business.

And I'm not sure the phrase "on the table" is appropriate in this instance.

Thanks. Unfinished business. I just couldn't think of that term and I was thinking that motion that has not been disposed is "on the table" (think lay on the table) which is absolutely incorrect in this context.

So to make my question more understandable. Is unfinished business carried over to the next session or not under RONR?

[jstackpo]

Carried over -- see p. 358 ff.

[Guest lazyyp]

So, does the unfinished business work after 10 years or is it a dead issue?

[jstackpo]

The book, p. 358, allows for "Unfinished Business" (as strictly defined there) to be carried over from two meetings/sessions in the past, but says nothing about 10 years go.

Since you didn't take up the unfinished business properly in all those intervening years, I'd say (even though RONR doesn't) that it is dead and gone. You could make the motions involved any time as new business, of course, if appropriate.