Recounting the vote after meeting

[Guest J. Jensen]

At our last AGM a motion was defeated. Some four weeks later members are notified by post by the Board that there was a mistake in the counting: that abstentions should not be counted towards the 3/4 majority needed. Removing abstention votes passes the motion. Now the motion is passed. At the meeting members were told by the Board that the motion was defeated. Are counting mistakes allowed for and to what extent can they happen retrospectively?

[Sean Hunt]

At our last AGM a motion was defeated. Some four weeks later members are notified by post by the Board that there was a mistake in the counting: that abstentions should not be counted towards the 3/4 majority needed. Removing abstention votes passes the motion. Now the motion is passed. At the meeting members were told by the Board that the motion was defeated. Are counting mistakes allowed for and to what extent can they happen retrospectively?

The motion is not passed; the chair's announcement that the motion was defeated stands. It was incorrect, but going back and trying to fix it will not make it better. The decision would need brought forward again at a future general meeting.

[David A Foulkes]

The decision would need brought forward again at a future general meeting.

And this would be as simple as a member Renewing (moving again) the motion. This could be done at the next general meeting, unless there were some restriction in your rules such as it is a bylaw amendment which can only be moved at AGMs.

[Rob Elsman]

At our last AGM a motion was defeated. Some four weeks later members are notified by post by the Board that there was a mistake in the counting: that abstentions should not be counted towards the 3/4 majority needed. Removing abstention votes passes the motion. Now the motion is passed. At the meeting members were told by the Board that the motion was defeated. Are counting mistakes allowed for and to what extent can they happen retrospectively?

An executive board has no power to countermand actions taken by the general membership assembly.

[Gary c Tesser]

Also take a look at Official Interpretation #2006-11, at www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_11 , and also maybe 12.

[Guest J. Jensen]

Thank you for all the replies. That is very helpful. I suppose what is interesting about this case is the fact that nobody disputes the numbers (they were carefully recorded), but that the Chair announced a result at the meeting which later turned out to be wrong because of counting abstentions as part of the 100%. And whether the Board, on its own, can revert what they call a 'procedural mistake' later. There is of course no harm in putting the motion forward again (except one has to wait a year or call a special general meeting). Difficult.

[George Mervosh]

Also take a look at Official Interpretation #2006-11, at www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_11 , and also maybe 12.

Why not 18 too?

[Gary c Tesser]

Why not 18 too?

George, I thought about it. No problem with -18 at all, in and of itself, but it entails what, to me at least, are distracting details. 2006-11, by itself, dealt with both the counting error and making sure the board butts out, however well-intentioned it may be this time. And the difference between -18 and -17 usually makes me dizzy.