J. J.

Do you have a suggestion on the wording.

I will assume that the mayor has some part in the process, but cannot "replace" an ordinance on his own. It will depend on what your city legislative body actually voted upon. If the were given the text of the ordinance, and it said Ordinance 48, they have replaced Ordinance 48. That would be true even if they didn't read that text. I know of no requirement in RONR that requires people to know what they were voting on. If, after voting, the number was changed by the person typing this up to Ordinance 48, for any reason, that was not something that this legislative body adopted, then that is not something that was adopted. I strongly suspect that the number of the ordinance, or even the text, would have been advertised and would suggest that you look there as well.

I would welcome it. I can construct an argument, that I think works, that a recount cannot change an improper announcement, though some improper announcements may create a breach of a continuing nature and be dealt with via point of order.

In a counted standing vote, with tellers, there would be numbers, not marks. A teller would count one row, and if recording them, in writing would just right down the number of people voting yes, then moving to the next row. That would be repeated by the no votes. He may just report the number, orally, to the president as he is taking the count or keep a running total in his mind and report the total number of votes. Even if he would give a tellers report in writing, it might be something as simple as "64 yes, 33 no."

I'm not in a agreement that there would be nothing to recount, but I will come back to that. If the sole purpose of a recount is to determine if the vote totals were correct, how can than the incorrect result that the chair announce be corrected by this motion. For example, on a roll call vote, the chair announced the result 64 in favor and 33 against, an then declared the motion adopted. On a recount, the votes taken will not change. The only record is what the secretary wrote down. I can understand that if a roll call can be recounted, and the count is different, that result be changed based on that recount. My problem is that, when the count is the same, and there is an error in the announcement, it seems that the result would stand as well, if a recount can only make sure that the count is correct. As to there being nothing to recount on a counted vote, there is a record, the secretary's notes. On a roll call, there is a record, the secretary's notes. I'm trying to see where to draw a line ,as it were, between the secretary's record is the case of a roll call and the secretary's record in the case of a counted vote. Perhaps a recount cannot "fix" an improper announcement from the chair?

There is a written record. The secretary (and possibly the president) wrote done the results. The line does not say, "A tally sheet must be kept in order to have a recount. This isn't an "evidentiary" question. The secretary somehow had this recorded so it could be in the minutes. There is no question as to what the announced result was, just as there would be no question of what the result was in a ballot or roll call vote. The secretary kept his notes from the meeting. There is a contemporaneous record. There are no "tellers" in this case (though there could be), but there are no tellers in a roll call vote, either. That would just be the secretary recording how each member voted. There is a written record of the count. You could say, "There must be a teller in order to have a recount," but that would exclude roll calls. You could say, "There has to be a record of how each member voted to have a recount," but that would exclude ballots. You could say, "There must be a record of individual votes cast to have a recount," but that would leave out counted voice votes, even if they had a tally sheet. Why would the secretary writing down the count be different that a teller writing down the count? That is not a rhetorical question.

I cited that below, but I thought it was confusing in the quote. Page 411 says you can recount a standing, in accord with the rules on p. 419, which says that you can do it in the next session, if that session is within the quarterly time interval. I'm persuadable on this, but I can't come up with how to recount a standing vote (five minutes after the fact or three months after the fact). The only thing I keep coming back to is the record of the count. You could argue that the chair was just stating the result and that the result wasn't the actual vote. You could make a similar argument about recording a roll call vote, however. In recounting a roll call vote, you are not counting the actual vote, but a record of that vote; the actual vote occurs when the member articulates it.

"Depending on the circumstances, the voting body may be able to order a recount if an election was conducted by ballot, roll call, or counted vote (p, 444, l. 35 -p. 445, ll. 1-3, internal cross references omitted, emphasis added)." It is in there. The paragraph also notes that it is also possible to vote on an election, by a different method, so that is not what it is referring to. Under the rule for ballots, which would apply to a counted standing vote (p. 411, ll. 19-21), the recount can be ordered at the next session, if within the quarterly time interval (p. 419, ll. 5-9). If there is no difference, the secretary wrote down the announced result, then that announced result must be the thing that is recounted.

Well, because p. 445, l. 3 says there is something to recount, at least in an election. On a standing vote where the is announced, in non-election cases, the society cannot get a recount, without suspending the rules. The reason is that they would be vote twice on the same question by the same method. The society could chose to vote by a different method, or could suspend the rules, as you noted.

And perhaps that is because you cannot have a recount on this particular question. You can, in some cases, ask the assembly to vote twice on the same question if that question is an election. In this case, the question is not an election and you can not have a recall of a standing vote. Now, that I might be able to get behind.

So the recorded votes of how people voted, in the minutes, would be subject to a recount, but the recorded count could not be subject to a recount. I am back to having that problem. Perhaps it is related to this problem. Without asking the assembly to vote twice on the same question by the same method, how do get a recount on a counted standing vote?

I would point out that Expunge is a larger part of that, which could account for the difference.

I said I wasn't too sure. I can make two arguments: One, the assembly effectively suspended the rule that a 2/3 vote was needed. When there was no objection, it was too late to do anything about it. Two, this isn't a point of order, but a recount or a recapitulation, as there could be one for any other counted vote. Okay. What is if this was a roll call, and that a roll call was in order and after the secretary typed up the minutes, he threw away his tally sheet, but, properly recording how each person voted in the minutes. In the same situation, could that be recounted?

I can buy that.

Not a bad suggestion; I have suggested it on one occasion. Hopefully the meeting was taped. I have read about one case where that did occur.

No disagreement on that point. The total number of votes cast is 97. We do have more information than that.

I agree that the vote cannot be retaken (and that this would not be subject to a point of order, in case anyone is looking at that). So, in this case, the statement of the result in the minutes could not be subject to a recount?

There is a record, however, in the minutes. "For the motion, 64. Against the motion, 33. The motion was adopted." That is standard on a counted vote. I agree that you cannot recount a vote that wasn't counted in the first . Is the count, as recorded in the minutes, enough to trigger a recount. I can argue this, forcefully, either way.

A "recount" can be ordered on a standing counted (pp. 444-45), in an election at least. The vote was counted, so it should have been in the minutes. An uncounted standing vote could normally not be recounted, nor have a recapitulation done, for the reason you mention, no record of the vote. The chair counted a standing vote, and the count was properly included in the minutes. All parties agree that the was 64 to 33 and that this is less than the required two thirds vote. A member moves that the vote be recounted or recapitulated at the next meeting. Is that in order? If so, the secretary reads the result. Can the chair then announce that the result is not 2/3 being in favor and that the motion is lost?

The society's bylaws require that "Any expenditures above one thousand dollars shall require a two-thirds vote to be adopted." At a meeting of the assembly there is a motion to approve an expenditure of $2500.00. The chair calls for a standing vote, and the assembly adopts a motion that the vote be counted. The vote is taken and counted. The result is 64 in favor 33 against. The chair announced that the ayes have it and the motion was adopted. No one raised a point of order. The vote is recorded in the minutes Could, at the next meeting, a "recapitulation" be ordered. If so, should the chair state that the motion was not adopted as it did not receive the required 2/3 vote? I think those could be two separate questions.

I will note that a special meeting must be authorized in the bylaws. Provided that the meeting was properly called, permitting a nonmember to speak, or even to enter into debate, would neither invalidate the meeting nor the motion being considered.

I agree. I would also not that, if a motion were to be made by a nonmember, but properly entertained by the chair, and debated, it would be too late to raise a point of order. Such a point of order must be timely.

I would rule it to be the essentially the same question. Now, as always, the assembly is free to appeal that ruling. However, this still an academic question as there was no point of order or appeal.

First, a commissioner should to the board's solicitor to determine if it is required or advisable to be adopted by ordinance. If not, it should be handled as a regular main motion. Since we do not what is in it, nobody here could possibly say who this policy would apply to.

On this point I disagree with Alexis, partially. The 75%/25% split could have been amended by striking out 75%25% and inserting 60%/40%. The chair should have properly ruled the motion out of order that it was substantially the same question. However, a ruling, or a point of order, would have had to have been timely. Once discussion began on the question, it was too late to do anything about it. I do agree with Alexis it does not make a difference. Mr. B, effectively, moved to Rescind the motion at the next meeting, which was acceptable. His remark about the motion being out of order, in my view, was improper debate. RONR notes that, "Members have no right to criticize a ruling of the chair unless they appeal from his decision (p. 256, ll. 4-5)." It also confused the issue. Mr. B may move to rescind the motion, and discuss the merits of doing so in debate, but should not enter into if it was technically in order at the March meeting.