Guest RHWilliams Posted April 26, 2012 at 06:08 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 at 06:08 PM Our small board [less than 10] has over the last few years fallen into the custom of asking for "NO" votes rather than "YES" first after any motion has been made & seconded. This came about due to the relative lack of "NO" votes on the vast majority of issues. Recently a member "gave 30 days notice to resign" and a motion was made & seconded on that issue. The vote was taken in the 'customary' form of "NO" first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted April 26, 2012 at 06:25 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 at 06:25 PM Do they also ask for the "YES" votes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RHW Posted April 26, 2012 at 06:30 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 at 06:30 PM Do they also ask for the "YES" votes?YES votes are asked for after the NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted April 26, 2012 at 06:35 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 at 06:35 PM YES votes are asked for after the NOAs unorthodox as it may be the votes are still valid. However, when the Chair tries asking for the "NO" votes first someone should raise a Point of Order that the "YES" votes should be asked for first (RONR pp. 44-47). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted April 26, 2012 at 07:32 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 at 07:32 PM The fact that the "no" votes were called first in no way invalidates the action taken. I just thought that should be mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RHW Posted April 26, 2012 at 07:43 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 at 07:43 PM YES votes are asked for after the NOReason for initial question is that a non-board member who was in attendance commented after the meeting that any action taken on the motion was void due to taking "NO" first and not getting a full show of hands on the vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 26, 2012 at 07:47 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 at 07:47 PM The fact that the "no" votes were called first in no way invalidates the action taken. I just thought that should be mentioned. Yes, it was a scheduled monthly meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted April 26, 2012 at 08:38 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 at 08:38 PM The fact that the "no" votes were called first in no way invalidates the action taken. I just thought that should be mentioned. Yes, it was a scheduled monthly meeting.Probably me again, but...... huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted April 26, 2012 at 08:50 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 at 08:50 PM Probably me again, but...... huh? Second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted April 26, 2012 at 09:15 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 at 09:15 PM Second. I'll move the previous question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 26, 2012 at 09:56 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 at 09:56 PM Second. "scheduled monthly meeting" was a reply to 'J.J.' question above his picture on his original posted answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted April 26, 2012 at 10:07 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 at 10:07 PM "scheduled monthly meeting" was a reply to 'J.J.' question above his picture on his original posted answer :lol: What you were responding to was the tag line for his avatar. It will say that every time he posts something (until he changes it of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted April 26, 2012 at 10:51 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 at 10:51 PM "scheduled monthly meeting" was a reply to 'J.J.' question above his picture on his original posted answerYou might ask it it was a formal one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 26, 2012 at 11:26 PM Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 at 11:26 PM You might ask it it was a formal one. guess you can tell this is 1st time that I have been here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted April 27, 2012 at 02:29 AM Report Share Posted April 27, 2012 at 02:29 AM guess you can tell this is 1st time that I have been hereI hope it won't be the last! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted May 1, 2012 at 01:23 PM Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 at 01:23 PM Our small board [less than 10] has over the last few years fallen into the custom of asking for "NO" votes rather than "YES" first after any motion has been made & seconded. This came about due to the relative lack of "NO" votes on the vast majority of issues. Recently a member "gave 30 days notice to resign" and a motion was made & seconded on that issue. The vote was taken in the 'customary' form of "NO" first.The Yes votes should be taken first, if RONR is your parliamentary authority. If you don't have a rule on this, then a point of order to that effect would be well-taken and the custom would fall to the ground.But it's not a serious enough error to invalidate any votes already taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.