improper vote

[Guest brendan]

at our monthly meeting a motion was brought to the floor,it was seconded,a discussion followed for approx 10 minutes. at that time a vote was taken and the majority said no to this particular motion. the president banged the gavel-done deal ,right? Then another member got up and stated that there was a member in the kitchen who did not vote,and put another motion to take another vote,which was allowed by the president. The member in the kitchen was brought out ,was mis informed as to what the motion was, a few more members showed up and a second vote was taken-needless to say the vote was reversed. I feel the second vote should have never been allowed,the majority said no and the head table said we dont care what the majority said. My question is a simple one-CAN YOU HAVE A SECOND VOTE JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT LIKE THE RESULTS OF THE FIRST VOTE? Common sense says no but i cant find any verbage in the book that says that. I NEED A SPECIFIC SECTION THAT I CAN REFER TO AT OUR NEXT MEETING. A member of our body who was also mayor said you might not find it because it is such a flagarent violation that you dont even need to mention it-its so obvious. Any help would be appreciated

[jstackpo]

Please stop YELLING at us! We can hear/read you just fine... (discrete italics are fine for emphasis...)

In answer to your question, No (p. 111, line 11 ff.) , but the (adopted or defeated) main motion could be reconsidered (and thus voted on again) if a majority wish to reconsider it (p. 315) - there are other rules about reconsider so check them out.

I couldn't tell if the "another member [who] got up" moved reconsideration -- I doubt it. If he had that might have been proper, depending on those other rules about reconsider.

But finally, since, per your account, nobody raised a timely point or order, the adopted motion is now in force...

Unless its adoption falls under the "continuing breach" rules of p. 251, line 11 ff. in which case a point or order any time will make the adoption null and void.

Good luck sorting all that out!

[Josh Martin]

Please stop YELLING at us! We can hear/read you just fine... (discrete italics are fine for emphasis...)

In answer to your question, No (p. 111, line 11 ff.) , but the (adopted or defeated) main motion could be reconsidered (and thus voted on again) if a majority wish to reconsider it (p. 315) - there are other rules about reconsider so check them out.

I couldn't tell if the "another member [who] got up" moved reconsideration -- I doubt it. If he had that might have been proper, depending on those other rules about reconsider.

But finally, since, per your account, nobody raised a timely point or order, the adopted motion is now in force...

Unless its adoption falls under the "continuing breach" rules of p. 251, line 11 ff. in which case a point or order any time will make the adoption null and void.

Good luck sorting all that out!

I concur, however, the assembly is free to Rescind the motion if it has not been fully executed. This requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice.

[Gary Novosielski]

Then another member got up and stated that there was a member in the kitchen who did not vote,and put another motion to take another vote,which was allowed by the president.

The fact that someone was in the kitchen deserves no consideration of any kind, unless he was forced to be there.

But the motion to Reconsider is a valid motion, and that's apparently what this member was trying to accomplish. However, since he apparently favored the defeated motion, and presumably voted for it, and therefore had not voted on the prevailing side, he was not eligible to make the motion to Reconsider, and the president should not have allowed the motion (at least not by him). Someone who had voted against the motion would be eligible to move to reconsider the vote.

But the president was apparently ignorant of the rules, and nobody pointed out his error, so at this point what's done is done, unless a continuing breach exists.