voting on incorrect facts

[Guest linda aiello]

a motion was made seconded and passed on incorrect facts. how do we un do that motion? May we reconsider or rescind the motion?

 

[Kim Goldsworthy]

There are time limits for the motion, "Reconsider."

So I can recommend "Rescind" with higher confidence, without knowing the particulars of your scenario.

See the motion, "Rescind; Amend Something Previously Adopted" in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th ed.)

See the motion, "Reconsider," for its possible application.

 

One more caveat:

• You cannot rescind that which is impossible to undo.

E.g., If you buy a piano, or paint a room, the proper motion would be a new motion (correspondingly, "to return the piano"; or "to paint the room [a different color]").

So perhaps what you adopted under false assumptions can just be handled by a new motion to take the opposite tack, instead of un-doing the old motion.

 

[Guest linda aiello]

Our nominating committee presented the slate of officers for the 2015 term.  Our nominees for treasurer and asst. treasurer are sisters. The recording  sec. spoke up with what she felt was a rule that relatives could not hold offices as such. The body of the group took it as correct when it was not. At that point the nominee withdrew and someone from the floor volunteered the office. A member nominated the volunteer and it was seconded and passed. The president called for a motion to accept the new slate of officers. It was made and passed.  How is the best way to back up and do this correctly. Once the nominee withdrew , the nominating committee should have went back into looking for a new nominee. We would have found that the relative rule was incorrect and represented our slate.

[Richard Brown]

Linda, is this a new and different question from your initial post in this thread?  It seems so, as your first question was about a motion being made and passed based on incorrect facts.  Is this a clarification of your original question or a new question?  If it's a new question, please post it again as a new topic.  This board works better that way:  One topic at a time.

[Guest linda aiello]

this was an attempt at clarification. Sorry.

[Richard Brown]

What was the motion that was passed based on incorrect facts?  Or was there no motion, but rather just someone's  statement that the two sisters could not serve at the same time?

 

If the latter (just a statement that sisters can't serve together), then I'm afraid the elections are a done deal and it is too late to do anything about it, unless the person who was elected after one sister withdrew is willing to resign herself, creating a vacancy which can (hopefully) be filled by appointment or election of the sister who withdrew.  She cannot be forced to resign, though, and I don't see any way to set aside the election unless she doesn't meet the qualifications in the bylaws or there was some other irregularity in the election that would justify having it declared null and void.

 

You said the two people were elected, essentially, by acclamation.  Do your bylaws allow that, or do they require a ballot vote?  If they require a ballot vote, the election without using secret ballots may be void.

[Guest linda aiello]

Richard,

I really appreciate your input. This is so confusing because it was not handled correctly at the time.

The motion that was passed was to accept the slate of officers with the nominee from the floor being the replacement for the original nominee.

I believe it was just on someone's statement. I am waiting to review the minutes of the meeting to make sure. So basically are you saying we, in all the confusion at that point, elected two people for the same office? Our by laws require a ballot vote when the slate of officers are presented by the nominating committee and there is a nomination from the floor.  Just don't know where to go from here to make it right for all concerned.

[Richard Brown]

 

The motion that was passed was to accept the slate of officers with the nominee from the floor being the replacement for the original nominee.

 

 

 So basically are you saying we, in all the confusion at that point, elected two people for the same office?

 

No, not at all.  I am saying that it  looks to me like one of the candidates withdrew and someone else was nominated and then both the treasurer and assistant treasurer were elected by acclamation, without a ballot vote.  Is that correct?

 

 

 Our by laws require a ballot vote when the slate of officers are presented by the nominating committee and there is a nomination from the floor.  Just don't know where to go from here to make it right for all concerned.

 

If your bylaws require a ballot vote, and don't make an exception for cases where there is only one nominee for each office, then the election is void because it violated your bylaws.  A requirement in the bylaws for a ballot vote cannot be waived unless the bylaws themselves provide for a waiver of that provision.

 

RONR  provides as follows starting at the bottom of page441:

 

"If the bylaws require the election of officers to be by ballot and there is only one nominee for an office, the ballot must nevertheless be taken for that office unless the bylaws provide for an exception in such a case. In the absence of the [page 442] latter provision, members still have the right, on the ballot, to cast "write-in votes" for other eligible persons.

 

Get yourself a copy of RONR 11th edition asap.

 

Edited to add:  upon re-reading your last post, it seems you are saying that the bylaws require a ballot vote only when there are nominees from the floor in addition to the slate from the nominating committee.  If that's the case, the bylaws may not have been violated and you are stuck with what happened.

[Richard Brown]

Once the nominee withdrew , the nominating committee should have went back into looking for a new nominee. We would have found that the relative rule was incorrect and represented our slate.

 

That is correct, per the provisions in RONR on page 435 starting on line 6.

 

However, I don't know that failure to do that is enough to constitute such a continuing breach or a violation of the principles of parliamentary law that it would void the election.  Whether the election is void is a decision that your Board or your assembly might have to make (whichever one has that authority).

[Timothy]

That is correct, per the provisions in RONR on page 435 starting on line 6.

 

However, I don't know that failure to do that is enough to constitute such a continuing breach or a violation of the principles of parliamentary law that it would void the election.  Whether the election is void is a decision that your Board or your assembly might have to make (whichever one has that authority).

 

The nominating committee serves at the will of the society, so even though a nominating committee could remain in existence if  a nominee withdrew, if the society fills the open position, the committee would cease to exist, as normal.

 

 

 Our by laws require a ballot vote when the slate of officers are presented by the nominating committee and there is a nomination from the floor.  Just don't know where to go from here to make it right for all concerned.

 

I suspect you violated your bylaws, which would invalidate the election. I don't know that there is way to make it right for everyone, but the next step is to raise a point of order and hold another election.

[Guest linda aiello]

To Richard

Yes both treasurer and assistant treasurer were elected without a ballot vote. Show of hands. Got the new RNOR today. Thank you for all of your insight.

This is new to me. You have been so helpful.

To Timothy: Thank you too for your input. I suspect you are right, there is no easy way for all concerned.

I'm turning my findings over to the board along with what I've learned from both of you.

Thank You Again

Linda

[Edgar Guest]

Yes both treasurer and assistant treasurer were elected without a ballot vote. Show of hands. 

 

It seems to me there should either have been a ballot vote or, in only one nominee per open office, no vote at all. 

[Guest linda aiello]

Mr Guest

The nominating committee had presented the treasurer in their report of slate of officers and she had accepted the position. There was no reason to ballot her position.

It was the assistant treasurer in question of accepting her position.

The assistant treasurer  withdrew her acceptance of the nomination when the subject of relatives was brought to the attention of the group incorrectly thinking she was the "fly in the ointment" and backed out gracefully as to not cause confusion. Then someone from the floor was nominated to take the position and at that time a motion was made to accept the slate of officers with the new person as assistant treasurer. I hope I am explaining it in a way that sheds light on what happened. Had a parliamentarian been present this could have been prevented. But that is hindsight.

[Bruce Lages]

What happened after the motion to 'accept the slate of officers'?  Was that followed by the chair announcing that the nominees were elected by acclamation (or words to that effect), or was that considered the actual election?  It also  would help if you coulld quote for us the exact bylaw language regarding election of officers, and, in particular, what if anything your bylaws say about write-in votes or any restrictions on who may be elected.

[Edgar Guest]

Then someone from the floor was nominated to take the position and at that time a motion was made to accept the slate of officers with the new person as assistant treasurer.

 

My point is that, if your bylaws required a (ballot) vote only if there was more than one nominee for a particular office, and there wasn't more than one nominee for the office of assistant treasurer, then there was no need to vote (by any method). Not that voting is the worst thing you could have done.

[Josh Martin]

Mr Guest

The nominating committee had presented the treasurer in their report of slate of officers and she had accepted the position. There was no reason to ballot her position.

It was the assistant treasurer in question of accepting her position.

The assistant treasurer  withdrew her acceptance of the nomination when the subject of relatives was brought to the attention of the group incorrectly thinking she was the "fly in the ointment" and backed out gracefully as to not cause confusion. Then someone from the floor was nominated to take the position and at that time a motion was made to accept the slate of officers with the new person as assistant treasurer. I hope I am explaining it in a way that sheds light on what happened. Had a parliamentarian been present this could have been prevented. But that is hindsight.

 

You have said that "Our by laws require a ballot vote when the slate of officers are presented by the nominating committee and there is a nomination from the floor." If this is accurate, I think that this will be an interesting question of bylaws interpretation to determine if a ballot vote was required in this instance, since there was a slate of officers and there was a nomination from the floor, but the candidate for the office in question withdrew from the election. It will be up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

 

If a ballot vote was required, the election is null and void. If a ballot vote was not required, the election is valid. The fact that the candidate withdrew from the election based upon erroneous information does not affect the validity of the election.

 

My point is that, if your bylaws required a (ballot) vote only if there was more than one nominee for a particular office, and there wasn't more than one nominee for the office of assistant treasurer, then there was no need to vote (by any method). Not that voting is the worst thing you could have done.

 

Yes, but the bylaws seem to say something more complicated than that.

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . but the bylaws seem to say something more complicated than that.

 

I agree. My point was that, if they has misinterpreted their bylaws to say that a ballot vote wasn't required when there was only one nominee, then there was no need to vote at all (e.g. by a show of hands).