Motion made but not voted on?

[Guest Shenandoah]

A motion was made and seconded. The motion was under debate when a member called for the question. The chair allowed the vote to be taken even thought I was still debating the issue. My understanding is that the vote taken ended the discussion; the original motion was never voted on because no one called for the previous question. This issue is still of interest and will probably come up at our next meeting. I have informed the chairman that the original issue was never voted on. I have researched the circumstances surrounding this issue, but I have been unable to answer several questions that I have. Is this issue now considered new business? I didn’t think it would be unfinished business since everybody thought that the motion had carried at the last meeting. It wasn’t tabled or postponed? It shouldn’t be unfinished business since it was thought to be finished with the vote. Can it be brought up at all if it is not published in the next meeting’s agenda before the meeting? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you.

[George Mervosh]

A motion was made and seconded. The motion was under debate when a member called for the question. The chair allowed the vote to be taken even thought I was still debating the issue. My understanding is that the vote taken ended the discussion; the original motion was never voted on because no one called for the previous question. This issue is still of interest and will probably come up at our next meeting. I have informed the chairman that the original issue was never voted on. I have researched the circumstances surrounding this issue, but I have been unable to answer several questions that I have. Is this issue now considered new business? I didn’t think it would be unfinished business since everybody thought that the motion had carried at the last meeting. It wasn’t tabled or postponed? It shouldn’t be unfinished business since it was thought to be finished with the vote. Can it be brought up at all if it is not published in the next meeting’s agenda before the meeting? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you.

Your facts seem a little fuzzy to me, but if he skipped over the vote to order the previous question, but DID put the question on the original motion (you say you voted on it, right?) then I think it's a done deal

Perhaps you can clear up exactly what you voted on when you say he "allowed the vote to be taken".

[Trina]

It's probably the usual mess, where the assembly doesn't realize that two distinct votes are needed (one to vote on the motion for the previous question, then -- if the call for the previous question is adopted -- a vote on the motion that was under debate). Also, see FAQ #11 for the proper way to use previous question. However, if the assembly and the chair all goofed, allowed an interruption of a member who was speaking in debate, and then conducted a vote under the assumption that the vote was on the motion under debate, I agree that it's a done deal.

Points of order -- which would certainly have been appropriate -- would have had to be timely.

The adopted motion could still be amended or rescinded -- that would take a higher voting threshold than adopting the motion in the first place.

Regarding the role of the agenda, you may want to read FAQ #14.

Might be a good idea to have a few copies of RONR In Brief available, to educate the chair and the members about the proper handling of a motion, and about how 'call for the question' really works.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you for your quick responses!

The original problem is stated in an earlier entry to this site:

http://robertsrules....is-in-progress/

(Note: may have to copy and paste.)

I have discussed this with the chairman based on the above captioned website entry, and I believe that the vote was invalid. If this is not true, then I may have to drop it altogether since the other members do not seem to want to investigate this topic. Since it is an employee drug and alcohol policy that will be used in future grant applications with government entities, I felt that it was important to have it sufficiently vetted. I will pursue it further, but I need to know if I am on solid ground as to whether the policy has been passed or if it needs to be brought up again - and if so, how? Most of the literature that I have found in my research says that if a debate is in progress, the call for the question is necessary to end the debate; and then the call for the previous question must be made to bring the original motion back up for a vote. It seems that the Robert's Rules were not followed; and that would mean that the motion was not voted on "legally", and is, therefore, not passed. Does the potential that members voted - not knowing what they were voting on - mean that the motion passed - even thought the person calling for the question did so before I relinquished the floor (chairman's error, I know) and there was confusion about what was being voted on? This is a conundrum worth pursuing, to me, because of its far reaching implications. Maybe I have a misunderstanding of how powerful Robert's Rules are when conducting business: I thought that if you agreed to conduct your business that you had to follow the procedures. Help!

[Trina]

Thank you for your quick responses!

The original problem is stated in an earlier entry to this site:

http://robertsrules....is-in-progress/

(Note: may have to copy and paste.)

I have discussed this with the chairman based on the above captioned website entry, and I believe that the vote was invalid. If this is not true, then I may have to drop it altogether since the other members do not seem to want to investigate this topic. Since it is an employee drug and alcohol policy that will be used in future grant applications with government entities, I felt that it was important to have it sufficiently vetted. I will pursue it further, but I need to know if I am on solid ground as to whether the policy has been passed or if it needs to be brought up again - and if so, how? Most of the literature that I have found in my research says that if a debate is in progress, the call for the question is necessary to end the debate; and then the call for the previous question must be made to bring the original motion back up for a vote. It seems that the Robert's Rules were not followed; and that would mean that the motion was not voted on "legally", and is, therefore, not passed. Does the potential that members voted - not knowing what they were voting on - mean that the motion passed - even thought the person calling for the question did so before I relinquished the floor (chairman's error, I know) and there was confusion about what was being voted on? This is a conundrum worth pursuing, to me, because of its far reaching implications. Maybe I have a misunderstanding of how powerful Robert's Rules are when conducting business: I thought that if you agreed to conduct your business that you had to follow the procedures. Help!

This statement (bolded) is not accurate, and that's sort of the key to figuring out what your current situation is. There are many many errors that can be made in parliamentary procedure, some leading to situations where a motion is not voted on "legally", to use your terms. Almost all of these errors must be challenged by a timely point of order; otherwise the action stands (the motion is indeed "passed", despite the errors along the way).

In the situation you describe (a member who had the floor was improperly interrupted, there was misunderstanding of "calling the question", and confusion about what was being voted on) several different points of order could have been raised at the time. After the outcome of the vote was announced (e.g. the chair says, "the drug and alcohol policy, as described in document blah blah blah, has been adopted") it's too late for those points of order.

The adopted motion can be rescinded or amended. The motion to do so is the motion to rescind, or amend something previously adopted, and can be made by any member. It has a higher voting threshold -- two-thirds without notice OR majority with notice OR majority of the entire membership (that means membership of the body conducting the vote).

There are a few errors in procedure which are sufficiently serious to constitute 'continuing breaches' -- these errors can be challenged by a point of order at any time, even long after the fact. You can read about them on p. 251 (RONR 11th ed.) to see if you find anything applicable. However, it doesn't sounds as though violations of this sort occurred in the situation you describe.

[Guest Shenandoah]

I would like to thank you for your help with my problem! Great answers. Best wishes for a happy and joyous new year! Shenandoah