Changing a Vote to Join Majority

[Guest Michael Andrzejak]

I've used this forum once before and was very pleased at the quick and accurate responses.

My question:

On a previous vote, of our 7 member City Commission, the vote was split 4 -3, with me being in the minority. I would now like to switch my vote to join the majority.

I recognize that it does not change the outcome of the majority vote already taken, and that by being in the miniority, I cannot make a motion for reconsideration.

Members in the majority are willing to make the motion to reconsider, but we are beyond the last meeting.

Do I have any options such as a Motion to Revisit, or any alternatives, to now join the majority? Incidentally, this did involve an ordinance amendment (with two readings), and would prefer that no substantive changes be made (in fact, no changes at all), and don't desire that it has to be routed back to the Planning Commission, first.

My objective is to handle this at the Commission Table....somewhat as a "change of heart".

Respectfully,

Michael Andrzejak

City of Royal Oak Mayor Pro Tem

ccandrzejak@ci.royal-oak.mi.us

[George Mervosh]

Move for unanimous consent to change your vote (p. 395). I think it's out of order at a subsequent meeting, but your efforts will be memorialized in the minutes.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

On a previous vote, of our 7 member City Commission, the vote was split 4 -3, with me being in the minority.

I would now like to switch my vote to join the majority.

I recognize that it does not change the outcome of the majority vote already taken, and that by being in the minority, I cannot make a motion for reconsideration.

Members in the majority are willing to make the motion to reconsider, but we are beyond the last meeting.

Do I have any options such as a Motion to Revisit, or any alternatives, to now join the majority?

No.

It is way too late to change one's actual vote.

You cannot change history.

The most you can do is to go on record as being in support.

To accomplish this, the motion would be treated as a REQUEST, namely, to enter into the minutes a statement to that effect.

The motion still must be approved, you know -- it isn't automatic.

If adopted, the minutes might end up reading like so:

"Upon a motion by Mr. [insert name], a request was made to include into the minutes a statement of support of [whatever resolution you voted negatively on] by Mr. [insert name]. The motion was adopted by general consent."

[jstackpo]

GM:

Why out of order?

Dan-the-Man has asserted that it would be (will we see this in RONR/11?) but there is certainly nothing to indicate any sort of time limit in RONR/10. "After that..." covers all of the future.

KG:

Your assertions certainly fly in the face of p. 395 -- you can change this small portion of history.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Why out of order?

Dan-the-Man has asserted that it would be (will we see this in RONR/11?) but there is certainly nothing to indicate any sort of time limit in RONR/10. "After that..." covers everything in the future.

You mis-remember.

DHH said that once the next item of business is presented, it is out of order to change one's vote via the unanimous consent route, as The Book describes.

The window is quite narrow.

[Gary Novosielski]

You mis-remember.

DHH said that once the next item of business is presented, it is out of order to change one's vote via the unanimous consent route, as The Book describes.

The window is quite narrow.

Yes, the time window is the same for changing one's vote as it is for moving to take the vote again by another method.

The vote requirement, however, is different. Changing one's vote before the result is announced is allowed, after it is announced requires unanimous consent, and after new business is pending it's no longer in order.

[George Mervosh]

GM:

Why out of order?

Dan-the-Man has asserted that it would be (will we see this in RONR/11?) but there is certainly nothing to indicate any sort of time limit in RONR/10. "After that..." covers all of the future.

This doesn't seem to say "all of the future". Until the 11th clears it up, if it does, the OI will be what I go by.

[jstackpo]

GM:

Do you believe everything you read on the I'net? "It must be true, I saw it on a webpage"

I go by the clear text in the adopted authority which has NO time limit specified, including, GN, "after new business is pending".

That "after new..." limitation is true for changing the method of voting -- p. 273 -- but there is no such limitation stated on p. 395. Or elsewhere where changing a vote is discussed - p. 46.

[George Mervosh]

GM:

Do you believe everything you read on the I'net? "It must be true, I saw it on a webpage"

I go by the clear text in the adopted authority which has NO time limit specified, including, GN, "after new business is pending".

That "after new..." limitation is true for changing the method of voting -- p. 273 -- but there is no such limitation stated on p. 395. Or elsewhere where changing a vote is discussed - p. 46.

The OI is clearly meant to supplement the loose ends in the text....if the opinion in the OI is good enough for them it's good enough for me.

[jstackpo]

To be sure, the OI is a supplement but unless the association in question has adopted the Internet as it's parliamentary authority, the OI (and the others) are not binding any more than my opinion or yours.

[tctheatc]

RONR Official Interpretations published on the Robert's Rules Association website are not technically binding on an organization that has adopted Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised as its parliamentary authority, but they are nonetheless definitive interpretations of the work by the current authors and should therefore be treated as highly persuasive.

I suppose "highly persuasive" is as definitive as the "promptly" in the voting question at hand!

[Rob Elsman]

Move for unanimous consent to change your vote (p. 395). I think it's out of order at a subsequent meeting, but your efforts will be memorialized in the minutes.

I deplore knowingly making a motion or request that is out of order for the sole purpose that "...[the maker's] efforts will be memorialized in the minutes." This smacks of using parliamentary actions in bad faith.

[Rob Elsman]

No.

It is way too late to change one's actual vote.

You cannot change history.

The most you can do is to go on record as being in support.

To accomplish this, the motion would be treated as a REQUEST, namely, to enter into the minutes a statement to that effect.

The motion still must be approved, you know -- it isn't automatic.

If adopted, the minutes might end up reading like so:

"Upon a motion by Mr. [insert name], a request was made to include into the minutes a statement of support of [whatever resolution you voted negatively on] by Mr. [insert name]. The motion was adopted by general consent."

In my opinion, this request is dilatory and out of order. It is to be remembered that the minutes are the journal of the proceedings of the assembly, not the private journal of an individual member.