Guest Jane Posted April 18, 2011 at 12:13 AM Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 at 12:13 AM Can a member rescind their vote following a meeting and ask that the meeting minutes reflect this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry4000 Posted April 18, 2011 at 12:14 AM Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 at 12:14 AM Can a member rescind their vote following a meeting and ask that the meeting minutes reflect this?No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted April 18, 2011 at 12:52 AM Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 at 12:52 AM No...However, they can move to Rescind/Amend it (if the motion was adopted) or renew the motion (if it was defeated) at any later session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 18, 2011 at 01:05 AM Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 at 01:05 AM Can a member rescind their vote following a meeting and ask that the meeting minutes reflect this?No, votes cannot be "rescinded". A member can request that their vote be changed if they act immediately, but it's way to late for that now.Was this a roll-call vote? Because if it was not, the minutes would not reflect how anyone voted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted April 18, 2011 at 01:17 AM Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 at 01:17 AM Gary N.:Can you RONR-document "way too late for that now". Makes good sense but I don't find it in RONR. P. 395 doesn't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted April 18, 2011 at 01:56 AM Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 at 01:56 AM Gary N.:Can you RONR-document "way too late for that now". Makes good sense but I don't find it in RONR. P. 395 doesn't do it.I was looking in the index under Voting for an entry "too late, way (for that)" but can't seem to find it. I'm hoping Gary will be able to locate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 18, 2011 at 01:57 AM Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 at 01:57 AM Can you RONR-document "way too late for that now". Makes good sense but I don't find it in RONR. P. 395 doesn't do it.I believe that the phrase "after that" on page 395 must surely mean within the same meeting. Unless a motion to Reconsider and Enter On the Minutes is made prior to adjournment, then any window of voting uncertainty should end with the final gavel, excepting, of course, continuing breaches of the rules (p. 244). But no, I don't have a citation to support that, except to say that it would otherwise inevitably lead to human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeM Posted April 18, 2011 at 01:51 PM Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 at 01:51 PM I believe that the phrase "after that" on page 395 must surely mean within the same meeting... But no, I don't have a citation to support thatIf we are all talking about changing one's vote after the result is announced, then surely Official Interpretation 2006-21 is the relevant citation, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 18, 2011 at 02:13 PM Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 at 02:13 PM If we are all talking about changing one's vote after the result is announced, then surely Official Interpretation 2006-21 is the relevant citation, correct?That'll do nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted April 18, 2011 at 03:14 PM Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 at 03:14 PM Well, "nicely" until there is a fight when someone seriously wants to change his vote "way too late" in order to avoid liability, say, over something he voted for. Since OI # 2006-21 isn't part of the adopted parliamentary authority, and "after that" is about as open ended as you can get, he may well have a case.Granted, it is unlikely that he'll get "unanimous consent" to make the change, and by the time the dust has settled, RONR/11 will be available with (I'll bet) the "after that" loophole closed off, but right now it appears to be a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 18, 2011 at 06:57 PM Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 at 06:57 PM Since OI # 2006-21 isn't part of the adopted parliamentary authority, and "after that" is about as open ended as you can get, he may well have a case.No, but it is an Official Interpretation of the words contained in the parliamentary authority, and that's good enough for me (and any meeting in which I can object to unanimous consent). I probably could not make an airtight case that would cut it quite as closely as the OI does, i.e., until the next business is taken up. But I submit that only a fool or a Congressman (but I repeat myself) would think it appropriate to allow every vote ever made in an assembly to remain in a potentially undecided state forever, subject to being switched back and forth every time a scant quorum found itself too sleepy to object to the practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.