Where does the burden of proof lie?

[George Mervosh]

Our good friend Chris Harrison's answer in another thread:

 

Unless the "new" policy was adopted "by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion" (a 2/3 vote or a majority of the ENTIRE membership if previous notice was not given or a majority vote if notice was given) it is null and void and the "old" policy is still in effect (RONR p. 251, pp. 306-307).

 

prompts these questions from me -

 

Is it the responsibility of the person raising the point of order to show proof that the vote which adopted the conflicting motion was insufficient?

 

If no such proof is forthcoming and the chair is uncertain himself how close the vote was as there is a lack of documented facts, how should he rule?

[Richard Brown]

It seems to me that the burden of proof should be on those who claim that the "new" policy was adopted by at least a two-thirds vote. 

 

I believe it's appropriate to assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that motions declared adopted were adopted by at least a majority vote.  I don't believe it is appropriate to assume the vote margin was higher than that unless the minutes disclose the vote count or a declaration by the presiding officer that the motion was adopted by a larger majority... such as a two-thirds vote or that the vote was "unanimous".  If the chair did declare that the vote was unanimous and the minutes reflect that statement, then I believe the burden shifts to those who contend that the minutes are inaccurate.

 

If the chair believes there is not sufficient evidence to determine whether the motion was adopted by at least a two-thirds vote (or a majority of the entire membership), then the chair should rule the point of order well taken.

[Dan Honemann]

Our good friend Chris Harrison's answer in another thread:

 

Unless the "new" policy was adopted "by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion" (a 2/3 vote or a majority of the ENTIRE membership if previous notice was not given or a majority vote if notice was given) it is null and void and the "old" policy is still in effect (RONR p. 251, pp. 306-307).

 

prompts these questions from me -

 

Is it the responsibility of the person raising the point of order to show proof that the vote which adopted the conflicting motion was insufficient?

 

If no such proof is forthcoming and the chair is uncertain himself how close the vote was as there is a lack of documented facts, how should he rule?

 

No.

[George Mervosh]

No.

 

Fair enough.  I were the chair and had no clue if the vote was sufficient because of a lack of documented facts, I would put the question to the assembly and their decision would settle the point of order once and for all.

[Sean Hunt]

Fair enough.  I were the chair and had no clue if the vote was sufficient because of a lack of documented facts, I would put the question to the assembly and their decision would settle the point of order once and for all.

I probably wouldn't. RONR is clear that there must be evidence that the vote was sufficient for it to be allowed, and if I put this to the assembly, I would expect people to vote for the desired outcome (the new policy) rather than the correct one (the old one).

[George Mervosh]

I probably wouldn't. RONR is clear that there must be evidence that the vote was sufficient for it to be allowed, and if I put this to the assembly, I would expect people to vote for the desired outcome (the new policy) rather than the correct one (the old one).

 

Lacking facts that the vote was sufficient would seemingly require the chair to rule the point well taken, thereby eliminating his doubt and need to refer it.  Good point.