Guest CJW Posted October 17, 2012 at 07:15 PM Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 at 07:15 PM Hello,At our last meeting, the body voted on a motion and there were 18 in favor, 12 opposed and 9 abstentions. The Chair makes a point of asking for abstentions instead of simply recording them, which may have played into the confusion that followed...The Chair announced that the motion had failed, since the votes in favor did not exceed half of the votes cast. This is plainly incorrect, but no one rose with a Point of Order to challenge that interpretation...including me, since I was stunned by what I had just heard (I was also opposed, so it was decided in my favor, so to speak).We have now been notified that "further research" has determined that the result was announced incorrectly, and therefore will be changed in the minutes and assumed to have actually passed.My question regards the validity of these actions. Shouldn't the declaration of the result have been challenged with a timely Point of Order? Or, if this is a violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, doesn't that mean the result is null and void, and we "start over" with the motion?I would greatly appreciate any input (even beyond the scope of my question, if you have more to add), and I thank you in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted October 17, 2012 at 07:22 PM Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 at 07:22 PM My question regards the validity of these actions. Shouldn't the declaration of the result have been challenged with a timely Point of Order? Or, if this is a violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, doesn't that mean the result is null and void, and we "start over" with the motion?Your first instinct is correct. See http://robertsrules.com/faq.html#6 The chair declared the motion failed, and there was no timely point of order, so it failed. Any member could, of course, renew the motion at the next meeting (and it sounds like it would pass).Even if it were a violation of a FPPL, the minutes should not be altered. The minutes reflect what actually happened, even if what happened was in error. The minutes should only ever be changed if they contain a factual error or, in extreme cases, when a motion to Rescind and Expunge From the Minutes is adopted---but even then, the original text should remain visible so that the historical record is apparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 17, 2012 at 08:39 PM Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 at 08:39 PM The Chair makes a point of asking for abstentions instead of simply recording them . . .Well, it's unlikely they should even have been recorded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMargaret Posted October 17, 2012 at 09:31 PM Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 at 09:31 PM The Chair announced that the motion had failed, since the votes in favor did not exceed half of the votes cast. Can we confirm that this was this a motion that required a simple majority? Can we also confirm that this required a majority of members voting, not members present?And who is it that has determined that this was done in error, and that the minutes will now be changed? It is the assembly that should be making the determination of this, not anyone acting independently (if if the person is the Chair). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CJW Posted October 17, 2012 at 09:52 PM Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 at 09:52 PM I can confirm both of your questions, sMargaret. It appears as though the Executive Board is responsible for the determination and decisions, although the message containing that information came only from the Chair.Again, thanks to all for your input. Additional thoughts/opinions welcome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted October 17, 2012 at 11:48 PM Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 at 11:48 PM Can we confirm that this was this a motion that required a simple majority? Can we also confirm that this required a majority of members voting, not members present?Even if the motion required a vote of those present - or of total members - the Chair still should not have asked for a 'vote' of those abstaining. The Chairman should have only asked for those in favour and those against the motion. Then the Chairman should simply announce "The motion has passed" or "The motion has failed." If this motion required a vote of those present or of the entire membership (of the Board) then the Chairman should simply have added up the "yes" votes and the "no" votes and then have stated something to the effect of "The motion has been defeated as it has not achieved the required votes" to make it clearer why the motion was defeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted October 18, 2012 at 01:33 PM Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 at 01:33 PM Even if the motion required a vote of those present - or of total members - the Chair still should not have asked for a 'vote' of those abstaining. The Chairman should have only asked for those in favour and those against the motion. Then the Chairman should simply announce "The motion has passed" or "The motion has failed." If this motion required a vote of those present or of the entire membership (of the Board) then the Chairman should simply have added up the "yes" votes and the "no" votes and then have stated something to the effect of "The motion has been defeated as it has not achieved the required votes" to make it clearer why the motion was defeated.There are very specific forms provided in RONR for use by the chair in taking the vote and announcing the result -- and these aren't they, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 18, 2012 at 04:10 PM Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 at 04:10 PM Hello,At our last meeting, the body voted on a motion and there were 18 in favor, 12 opposed and 9 abstentions. The Chair makes a point of asking for abstentions instead of simply recording them, which may have played into the confusion that followed...The chair should NOT ask for abstentions, and they should not be recorded. Next time raise a point of order. I mean not just about the result of the vote, but over the fact that he shouldn't be calling for abstentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.