Appeal the Chairs Decision

[Guest M LaFave-Byrley]

During a meeting of our membership a ballot vote was cast and the results were 9 ayes 3 nays and 1 abstention. Our constitution reads "Election shall be by secert ballot with an affirmative vote of three-fourths of those members present and voting". An appeal has been made and seconded after the conclusion of the meeting. The Chair counted 13 ballots(members present and voting). What is the correct out come of the vote according to RONR, 10th edition? What actions should be taken.

[hmtcastle]

The Chair counted 13 ballots(members present and voting).

The chair counted wrong. See FAQ #6.

If the chair ruled (incorrectly) that the motion failed (it didn't), and his ruling wasn't appealed at that time, it's too late. But not too late to make the same motion at the next regular meeting.

By the way, the chair can only rule during a meeting and an appeal can only be made during a meeting (not after).

[David A Foulkes]

During a meeting of our membership a ballot vote was cast and the results were 9 ayes 3 nays and 1 abstention. Our constitution reads "Election shall be by secert ballot with an affirmative vote of three-fourths of those members present and voting". An appeal has been made and seconded after the conclusion of the meeting. The Chair counted 13 ballots(members present and voting). What is the correct out come of the vote according to RONR, 10th edition? What actions should be taken.

You're saying this was an election, yes? I'll go with yes for now until you return and crack the secret code to get back in and tell us otherwise.

So, given what you've told us, I'm assuming you did not hold another round of voting, so you would have an incomplete election, and need to hold another one. Was this a regularly scheduled election, such as at Annual meeting? Or was this a mid-term election to fill a vacancy? Or........?

And keep in mind that members who abstain are not "present and voting", they are "present but not voting (abstaining)".

Of course, if this wasn't an election, and you just use that word in your bylaws to mean "Voting shall be by....." for any motion at all, then you may elect to disregard this.

[Robert B Fish]

A requirement that officers in an organization be elected by 3/4 of those present and voting will likely result in some very long evenings if they have a contested election. Perhaps this might be, e.g. election of a member to an honorary title such as "life member." As noted, that's a motion and not an election.

-Bob

[Gary Novosielski]

During a meeting of our membership a ballot vote was cast and the results were 9 ayes 3 nays and 1 abstention. Our constitution reads "Election shall be by [secret] ballot with an affirmative vote of three-fourths of those members present and voting". An appeal has been made and seconded after the conclusion of the meeting. The Chair counted 13 ballots(members present and voting). What is the correct out come of the vote according to RONR, 10th edition? What actions should be taken.

The chair was wrong.

There were only 12 members present and voting (9 voted Yes, 3 voted No).

There was one member present and NOT voting. An abstention is not a vote; it is an abstention from voting.

So three fourths (9/12) of those present and voting voted in the affirmative.

Apparently nobody raised a point of order at the time. The lack of timeliness makes the answers to the two questions "What should be done?" and "What should have been done?" different.

What should have been done was to raise a point of order that the chair did not count correctly. If the chair ruled against the point of order, an Appeal should have been moved. But it's too late now. The you-snooze-you-lose principle is a strong one.

What should be done now is to buy the chair a copy of RONR or, if he has one, suggest that he begin to use it. How to count votes is a basic skill that any presiding officer should have at a bare minimum. Either that or remove the chair and elect someone knowledgeable. And you can move that same motion again at a future meeting, and be prepared to set the chair straight if he messes it up again.

[George Mervosh]

Why doesn't OI 2006-18 apply here?

[Gary Novosielski]

Why doesn't OI 2006-18 apply here?

It does. It says it's too late for a point of order.

[Guest M LaFave-Byrley]

I forgot to add the constitution also says "the meeting at which the vote was taken shall be adjoruned without debate." Does that make a difference on the point of order of making the appeal at a later time, at the first opportunity available? Thank you for your attention to this issue.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I forgot to add the constitution also says "the meeting at which the vote was taken shall be adjoruned without debate."

Does that make a difference on the point of order of making the appeal at a later time, at the first opportunity available?

No.

A rule about "adjournment" is not relevant to a timely point of order.

Q. Is there any other fact you are trickling out one posting at a time?

[Guest M LaFave-Byrley]

You're saying this was an election, yes? I'll go with yes for now until you return and crack the secret code to get back in and tell us otherwise.

So, given what you've told us, I'm assuming you did not hold another round of voting, so you would have an incomplete election, and need to hold another one. Was this a regularly scheduled election, such as at Annual meeting? Or was this a mid-term election to fill a vacancy? Or........?

And keep in mind that members who abstain are not "present and voting", they are "present but not voting (abstaining)".

Of course, if this wasn't an election, and you just use that word in your bylaws to mean "Voting shall be by....." for any motion at all, then you may elect to disregard this.

Does "RONR(10th ed.), p. 402, l. 22-25; p. 402, l. 34 to p. 403, l. 2, states, " All ... illegal votes cast by legal voters ... are taken into account in determining the numbers of votes cast for purposes of computing the majority... The principle is that a choice has no mandate from the voting body unless approval is expressed by more than half of those entitled to vote and registering any evidence of having some opinion." In the case of an election, "registering any evidence of having some opinion" means an opinion as to who it is who should be elected." Apply in the since that there were 13 members present with the one vote counted in abstentia but there would be be 13 members present for determining the majority percentages? And yes this was an election at a specially called business meeting. Thank you for your attention to this issue.

[Guest M LaFave-Byrley]

I forgot to add the constitution also says "the meeting at which the vote was taken shall be adjoruned without debate." Does that make a difference on the point of order of making the appeal at a later time, at the first opportunity available? Thank you for your attention to this issue.

I made 1 final post of a question... I'm sorry for the multiple post, I am so inexperienced I can't seem to defend my position on my own merit. I did bring up the point of order of not appealing immeadiately and was told by the chair that because of our constitution wording "adjourn without debate" that the appeal at that time would have been ruled out of order. I don't agree but I'm no expert. Thank you for your patience with an inexperienced old parliamentarian from the 1978's. Things have changed.

[Josh Martin]

Does that make a difference on the point of order of making the appeal at a later time, at the first opportunity available?

No. The declaration of the chair regarding the outcome of the vote stands (although it's not clear what he declared).

a choice has no mandate from the voting body unless approval is expressed by more than half of those entitled to vote and registering any evidence of having some opinion." In the case of an election, "registering any evidence of having some opinion" means an opinion as to who it is who should be elected." Apply in the since that there were 13 members present with the one vote counted in abstentia but there would be be 13 members present for determining the majority percentages?

As you just quoted, the only votes that count are those in which the members "register any evidence of having some opinion." An abstention doesn't register any evidence of having an opinion. So for the purposes of determining whether a 3/4 vote was obtained, you go by the 12 votes actually cast (an abstention is not a vote). Therefore, based on the facts provided, the motion should have been declared adopted.

And yes this was an election at a specially called business meeting.

An election for what? If it was an election for say, honorary membership or something like that, it's handled like a motion, and the 3/4 vote requirement makes more sense. If this was an election for say, President or some other officer position, you did it wrong. You don't vote "yes/no" in officer elections, you vote for people.

I made 1 final post of a question... I'm sorry for the multiple post, I am so inexperienced I can't seem to defend my position on my own merit.

I'm not entirely clear on what your position is.

I did bring up the point of order of not appealing immeadiately and was told by the chair that because of our constitution wording "adjourn without debate" that the appeal at that time would have been ruled out of order.

Well, he may or may not be right (I have no idea what that idiotic-looking rule is intended to mean), but the appeal certainly isn't in order after the meeting is over.

[Gary Novosielski]

I forgot to add the constitution also says "the meeting at which the vote was taken shall be adjourned without debate." Does that make a difference on the point of order of making the appeal at a later time, at the first opportunity available? Thank you for your attention to this issue.

No. A Point of Order is not debate.

And the rule makes no sense anyway. Every meeting is "adjourned without debate", as the motion to Adjourn is not debatable. It can't be referring to the motion on which he vote was taken, because any debate would have occurred before the vote, not after it.

Maybe the answer will be found in portions of the sentence that you have yet to quote.

[David A Foulkes]

Does "RONR(10th ed.), p. 402, l. 22-25; p. 402, l. 34 to p. 403, l. 2, states, " All ... illegal votes cast by legal voters ... are taken into account in determining the numbers of votes cast for purposes of computing the majority...

As of yet, there is nothing you've posted that would indicate any illegal votes were cast. (Although, if this is an election for office, you shouldn't be voting yes/no anyway, so maybe the only legal vote was the abstention!)

Apply in the since that there were 13 members present with the one vote counted in abstentia but there would be be 13 members present for determining the majority percentages? And yes this was an election at a specially called business meeting. Thank you for your attention to this issue.

In absentia? Was Mr. 13 present at the meeting or not? There's a difference between in absentia ("in absence, not present") and an abstention (present but not voting), and though this does not change the result of the vote, I'm curious.

And for what position were you electing? The answer to this question can change the flow of the thread here, especially as regards to what do you do now.

[Tim Wynn]

Every meeting is "adjourned without debate", as the motion to Adjourn is not debatable.

Sometimes it's debatable. See p. 226, l. 31 - p. 227, l. 1.

[Gary Novosielski]

Sometimes it's debatable. See p. 226, l. 31 - p. 227, l. 1.

Sure. But under conditions "--which, however do not commonly apply to meetings of... ordinary societies having... several regular meetings during the year. In meetings of these organizations,... this motion is undebatable...."

(p. 227, l 5-13)

And frankly I can't imagine a case where there's any good reason to debate it, for much the same reason that the Previous Question is undebatable. If debate is what you're looking for, vote it down and debate something that's worth debating.

[Tim Wynn]

Sure.

I'm glad we concur.

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm glad we concur.

I'm fairly giddy.