Guest Stumped Posted August 16, 2011 at 03:29 AM Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 at 03:29 AM At the last meeting of our organization, a vote was taken on a sensitive topic. I am the secretary of the group, but was not present at the meeting. Another member took minutes in my absence. According to the president of the group, the vote ended in a tie. For whatever reason, the president did not cast a vote to break the tie, so as far as he was concerned, the topic was still open. The minutes, however, reflect that the vote was concluded and the motion failed. The problem lies in the fact that only "yes" votes were requested during the meeting. Neither "no" votes or abstentions were requested or counted. So now we have a situation where the president says one member abstained from the vote (and therefre the tie), but the taker of the minutes is convinced that the lack of a "yes" vote by that person indicated a "no" vote and not an abstention. How do we resolve this situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 16, 2011 at 03:40 AM Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 at 03:40 AM For whatever reason, the president did not cast a vote to break the tie...The President is not required to break the tie. He may do so if he wishes the motion to be adopted. Otherwise, a tie vote means the motion fails.Neither "no" votes or abstentions were requested or counted.Abstentions do not need to be requested or counted, as they ordinarily have no effect on the result. Although I'm somewhat puzzled as to how the President knew it was a tie if he did not ask for our count the no votes.So now we have a situation where the president says one member abstained from the vote (and therefre the tie), but the taker of the minutes is convinced that the lack of a "yes" vote by that person indicated a "no" vote and not an abstention.In the ordinary case, if a member does not cast a vote, it is an abstention, but the fact that the President did not call for no votes is problematic.How do we resolve this situation?While the whole situation was a mess, only one thing matters at this point - what did the President announce was the result of the vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted August 16, 2011 at 03:43 AM Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 at 03:43 AM At the last meeting of our organization, a vote was taken on a sensitive topic. I am the secretary of the group, but was not present at the meeting. Another member took minutes in my absence. According to the president of the group, the vote ended in a tie. For whatever reason, the president did not cast a vote to break the tie, so as far as he was concerned, the topic was still open. The minutes, however, reflect that the vote was concluded and the motion failed. The problem lies in the fact that only "yes" votes were requested during the meeting. Neither "no" votes or abstentions were requested or counted. So now we have a situation where the president says one member abstained from the vote (and therefre the tie), but the taker of the minutes is convinced that the lack of a "yes" vote by that person indicated a "no" vote and not an abstention. How do we resolve this situation?The majority is needed to adopt most motions (sometimes a larger vote is required). If the chair did not declare the motion adopted at that time, and no one raised a point of order, it probably should be treated as the motion being lost. The chair should normally ask for the no votes. Abstentions are generally never requested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stumped Posted August 16, 2011 at 04:06 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 at 04:06 PM So - although there was at least one procedural error (failure to count the "no" votes) and a lack of understanding on the part of the president during the meeting (thought that a tie vote indicated that the item would remain open), is there really any recourse at this point? It sounds like the motion has failed because there were not enough "yes" votes, and since no Point of Order was indicated and no clear announcement was made concerning the outcome of the vote - it remains as a failed vote. Is that correct? Thank you for the responses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted August 16, 2011 at 05:34 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 at 05:34 PM So - although there was at least one procedural error (failure to count the "no" votes) and a lack of understanding on the part of the president during the meeting (thought that a tie vote indicated that the item would remain open), is there really any recourse at this point? It sounds like the motion has failed because there were not enough "yes" votes, and since no Point of Order was indicated and no clear announcement was made concerning the outcome of the vote - it remains as a failed vote. Is that correct? Thank you for the responses!Generally, the correct answer for how the motion was disposed of is whatever the President said, unless someone made a Point of Order. So if the President said that the motion was lost, it was lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted August 16, 2011 at 06:12 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 at 06:12 PM Guest_Stumped -- Of personal interest: how could the president know there was an abstention if he neither called for no votes nor abstentions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted August 16, 2011 at 06:52 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 at 06:52 PM Guest_Stumped -- Of personal interest: how could the president know there was an abstention if he neither called for no votes nor abstentions?Well, naturally everyone who didn't vote "yes" had abstained since they didn't vote "no" right? What I really am curious about is as Josh asked how did the President know that there was exactly the same number of "no" votes as "yes" votes when the "no" votes were never asked for. Seems to me to be impossible unless the President is Betazoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted August 16, 2011 at 07:36 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 at 07:36 PM Well, naturally everyone who didn't vote "yes" had abstained since they didn't vote "no" right? What I really am curious about is as Josh asked how did the President know that there was exactly the same number of "no" votes as "yes" votes when the "no" votes were never asked for. Seems to me to be impossible unless the President is Betazoid. Well, let's say there are 25 members present. The yes votes total 12. The president did not vote, thus the rest of the members (would have) voted no, creating a tie.But, the president seems to have known one member abstained, which I gather is knowledge after the fact, though what do I know - I'm not a Betazoid! It might have been the member tipped the president off about his plan to abstain at the meeting. So, maybe 26 members, 12 yeses, the president and Mr. E abstain, leaving 12 no votes.Aah, what would you give for travel through the time-space continuum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert B Fish Posted August 16, 2011 at 08:33 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 at 08:33 PM Stumped should accept the fact that the motion has failed and, at least at this point, there is nothing that can be done to change the result of the earlier meeting. As the secretary who missed the meeting, he definitely cannot correct the matter by changing the minutes. However, since the motion was defeated, it can be presented again at the next meeting (technically:session) without limit. -Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 17, 2011 at 12:42 AM Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 at 12:42 AM So - although there was at least one procedural error (failure to count the "no" votes) and a lack of understanding on the part of the president during the meeting (thought that a tie vote indicated that the item would remain open), is there really any recourse at this point?Not really, no. Of course, since the motion has failed, the motion may simply be made anew at the next meeting. So it is true in a sense that the item is "open," although I'm not sure that's what the President had in mind.It sounds like the motion has failed because there were not enough "yes" votes, and since no Point of Order was indicated and no clear announcement was made concerning the outcome of the vote - it remains as a failed vote. Is that correct?That seems to be the most reasonable course of action at this point.In the future, if the chair simply moves on to the next item of business without announcing the outcome of the vote (which I take it is what happened), someone should immediately raise a Point of Order to avoid this sort of mess.Generally, the correct answer for how the motion was disposed of is whatever the President said, unless someone made a Point of Order. So if the President said that the motion was lost, it was lost.Unfortunately, in this case, it seems the chair did not make an announcement regarding how the motion was disposed of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stumped Posted August 17, 2011 at 05:02 PM Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 at 05:02 PM Well, let me first admit that I don't even know what a Betazoid is. I also really don't know how the president knew (or understood) that one member of the group abstained from the vote. ANYWAY - I thank you all for the input! As far as I am concerned, the motion failed because there was no majority "yes" vote. I just bought a copy of "Robert's Rules in Brief" (one of the Right Books), and we will have a refresher course at our next group meeting! Thanks again, everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 17, 2011 at 11:53 PM Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 at 11:53 PM Well, let me first admit that I don't even know what a Betazoid is. It is a reference to Star Trek: The Next Generation. They have the capacity to sense the emotions (and sometimes the thoughts) of others, hence Chris H.'s comment. As far as I am concerned, the motion failed because there was no majority "yes" vote.Well, really, the motion failed because (apparently) the President failed to make an announcement regarding the result of the motion. If the President had declared the motion adopted, it would have been adopted, even though his announcement would have been in error, as a Point of Order regarding the announcement of a vote must be raised at the time. See Official Interpretation 2006-18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.