Motion to Reconsider?

[Guest STS]

Robert's Rules apply to an organization I'm in.

A motion, duly seconded, was voted on. The outcome was 8 yes, 5 no, 7 abstentions. The chair ruled that the motion passed. The meeting was over.

Someone who voted against the motion called the parliamentarian (who was not at the meeting), who referred to a By law provision that says "the vote to adopt a resolution or pass a motion must be by at least eleven (11) votes. "

The parliamentarian then ruled, in an email, that the motion did not pass.

-----------------------------------------------------

It appears to me that this is improper. I think the vote stands until a Motion for Reconsideration is made by an appropriate person and voted on at the next meeting. Is that correct?

Also, I'd like your interpretation of the "the vote to adopt a resolution or pass a motion must be by at least eleven (11) votes" language. Does that mean 11 yes votes are required, or that a combination of 11 votes (yes's and no's, but not abstentions) is required?

Thanks for your very helpful site.

[hmtcastle]

I think the vote stands until a Motion for Reconsideration is made by an appropriate person and voted on at the next meeting. Is that correct?

The time for making a motion to reconsider has passed.

Stay tuned for those who will tell you that the chair's announcement (that the motion was adopted) is what counts, even if the chair was mistaken.

By the way, nothing in RONR requires 11 votes.

[Chris Harrison]

It appears to me that this is improper. I think the vote stands until a Motion for Reconsideration is made by an appropriate person and voted on at the next meeting. Is that correct?

Unless your bylaws say otherwise no one has the authority to rule on anything outside of a meeting. Also, the parliamentarian's job is to advise the Chair and assembly and not be making rulings. Finally, it is too late to be ruling that the motion did not pass because a timely Point of Order apparently was not raised that the bylaws require a higher vote than was obtained (RONR pp. 243-244).

Also, I'd like your interpretation of the "the vote to adopt a resolution or pass a motion must be by at least eleven (11) votes" language. Does that mean 11 yes votes are required, or that a combination of 11 votes (yes's and no's, but not abstentions) is required?

That is beyond this forum's scope. See RONR pp. 570-573 for help in interpreting those bylaws.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

..."the vote to adopt a resolution or pass a motion must be by at least eleven (11) votes" ...

Does that mean 11 yes votes are required, or that a combination of 11 votes (yes's and no's, but not abstentions) is required?

Isn't 8 + 5 = 13?

Isn't 13 greater than 11?

Or, in the phrase, "by 11 votes," does that imply "the affirmative side must have 11 votes more than the negative side"?

Since your rule is not text lifted from Robert's Rules of Order, there could be countless interpretations.

[Gary Novosielski]

Robert's Rules apply to an organization I'm in.

Hold that thought. Because it sounds like that's not the case for this particular situation.

A motion, duly seconded, was voted on. The outcome was 8 yes, 5 no, 7 abstentions. The chair ruled that the motion passed. The meeting was over.

It passed 8 to 5, which is a majority. Abstentions are not votes and should never be counted.

Someone who voted against the motion called the parliamentarian (who was not at the meeting), who referred to a By law provision that says "the vote to adopt a resolution or pass a motion must be by at least eleven (11) votes. "

The parliamentarian then ruled, in an email, that the motion did not pass.

Parliamentarians do not "rule". And anyone who does not know that is no parliamentarian. Only the chair can issue a ruling, and the chair ruled that the motion passed. Did anyone raise a point of order during the meeting? If not, case closed.

Furthermore, outside of a meeting, particularly in an e-mail, nobody can "rule" anything. So whatever happened, one thing we can all be certain of, is that a parliamentarian did not rule that the motion failed. And even if one did, it would not matter.

It appears to me that this is improper. I think the vote stands until a Motion for Reconsideration is made by an appropriate person and voted on at the next meeting. Is that correct?

No. It is too late to move to Reconsider at the next meeting. Other things can be done, but not Reconsider.

Also, I'd like your interpretation of the "the vote to adopt a resolution or pass a motion must be by at least eleven (11) votes" language. Does that mean 11 yes votes are required, or that a combination of 11 votes (yes's and no's, but not abstentions) is required?

Considering the source of that assertion, I have to ask: Have you actually seen it in writing? And did it actually say "eleven (11)"? That kind of goofy double-numbering is a pretty good sign that it was written by hooples. There's no way to tell what the heck it means. In my modest experience it ties for the worst-written--bylaws provision--ever. That's not interpretation, just opinion. But correct opinion. <grin>

For all I can tell, it would mean that a motion has to pass by eleven votes to carry, so that a motion that had 15 Ayes and 5 Noes would fail. Who knows? Or it could mean any of the things you guessed. Unless I saw it with my own eyes, I wouldn't even believe this provision existed. And if it did I would refuse to guess what it meant until after it was removed from the bylaws with a fish fork.

See what I mean about Robert's Rules apparently not applying? That rule is less likely to be found in RONR than it is to be found in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

[Josh Martin]

In my modest experience it ties for the worst-written--bylaws provision--ever.

You haven't been here long enough.

[Gary Novosielski]

You haven't been here long enough.

Probably right. But I do have a LOT of them tied for first place.

[Rob Elsman]

Robert's Rules apply to an organization I'm in.

A motion, duly seconded, was voted on. The outcome was 8 yes, 5 no, 7 abstentions. The chair ruled that the motion passed. The meeting was over.

Someone who voted against the motion called the parliamentarian (who was not at the meeting), who referred to a By law provision that says "the vote to adopt a resolution or pass a motion must be by at least eleven (11) votes. "

The parliamentarian then ruled, in an email, that the motion did not pass.

-----------------------------------------------------

It appears to me that this is improper. I think the vote stands until a Motion for Reconsideration is made by an appropriate person and voted on at the next meeting. Is that correct?

Also, I'd like your interpretation of the "the vote to adopt a resolution or pass a motion must be by at least eleven (11) votes" language. Does that mean 11 yes votes are required, or that a combination of 11 votes (yes's and no's, but not abstentions) is required?

Thanks for your very helpful site.

With respect to the announcement of the wrong result of the vote by the chair, see RONR, Off. Interp. 2006-18 at the Robert's Rules of Order website, www.robertsrules.com. The bylaw mentioned seems to be in the nature of a suspendable rule of order, so the result announced by the chair stands, since a Point of Order was not raised at the time the bylaw was breached, RONR (10th ed.), p. 243, ll. 19, 20.

As the others noted, a motion to Reconsider was not made within the prescribed time limits in RONR (10th ed.), p. 305, ll. 26-35, so it is too late to make one now. The proper motion at this point may be Rescind, RONR (10th ed.), §35, pp. 293ff.

[Gary Novosielski]

The bylaw mentioned seems to be in the nature of a suspendable rule of order....

Yes, I started to think so too, but then I got stuck, because without understanding what the rule means in the first place (and what are the odds of that?), how do I know what vote is required to suspend it*? How do I determine the size of the minority that it seeks to protect (if any), if I have no clue what it means?

__________

* An eleven(11)-vote margin, maybe? <grinduck>

[Josh Martin]

Yes, I started to think so too, but then I got stuck, because without understanding what the rule means in the first place (and what are the odds of that?), how do I know what vote is required to suspend it*? How do I determine the size of the minority that it seeks to protect (if any), if I have no clue what it means?

Well, there's not any need to worry about any of that after the fact. The fact that the rule is suspendable is sufficient for OI 2006-18 to apply.

[Guest STS]

Thanks so much for your fine advice. I sent an email summarizing your comments to the Parliamentarian. I know he reads these forums, so perhaps he will revise his opinion. Thanks again.

[Gary Novosielski]

Thanks so much for your fine advice. I sent an email summarizing your comments to the Parliamentarian. I know he reads these forums, so perhaps he will revise his opinion. Thanks again.

Also print or point him toward Official Interpretation 2006-18, which deals with a comparable situation.

[Guest STS]

Also print or point him toward Official Interpretation 2006-18, which deals with a comparable situation.

Yes I had seen that earlier. Thanks.