Using appeal to change outcome of vote

[Gary Novosielski]

55 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

It seems to have had the effect of disregarding all votes on the main motion.

Momentarily.  Then everyone except the chair was permitted to vote again.

[Weldon Merritt]

31 minutes ago, Jeepien said:

Momentarily.  Then everyone except the chair was permitted to vote again.

Yes, and the chair could have, too. Based on bad advice, he chose not to do so.

Look at it another way. Suppose in the initial vote, the chair had been told (erroneously) that he could vote only to beak a tie. Without the chair's vote, there was a one-vote margin in favor. The chair opposes the motion, and if he voted against the motiion, it would be lost. But accepting the erroneous advice at face value, he chooses not to vote. Would anyone serioulsy think that creates a continueing breach? And if not, what is the real difference? In both instances, the chair's vote would have made a difference, but based on bad advice, he chose not to vote. Anyone could have rasied a point of order, but no one did. YSYL!

[Guest TazPB]

Thanks everyone for your continued input! I have learned a lot from this discussion and will be checking on the resources mentioned for future meetings.

I will summarize what occurred:

1) A motion to raise the dues was made and seconded. The vote resulted in a tie with a for vote by members A & D and an against vote by the President and member C. Motion failed.

2) Next, a motion was made and seconded to keep the dues at the current rate. The vote resulted in a tie with a for vote by the President and member C and an against vote by members A & D. Motion failed.

3) Management company stated in an appeal the President can not vote. 

4) Member A stated an appeal was being used and took a vote on raising the dues. The President did not vote because he was told that he could not vote on an appeal by the management company. Member A and D voted for raising the dues, and Member C voted against it. Member A announced the motion carried. 

5) The meeting was adjourned. 

From my research combined with the great input from the this discussion, I now know several things were handled inappropriately, but I tried to only state the facts about what occurred at the meeting. 

 

 

 

[Richard Brown]

I think the management company needs to stay out of the business of giving parliamentary advice and stick to collecting dues and maintaining the grounds.  Let the board run the board meetings.  And all board members need to get a copy of RONR in Brief, pronto.  Tomorrow is Christmas.  The stores are open again Saturday.  Run out to your local Barnes & Noble and buy a copy for each member with your apologies that you didn't get it to them in time for Christmas.  They cost only $7.50 each and about the same on Amazon.  RONR (the big book) is about $18 in stores and $11.50 on Amazon.   If you want information on a couple of other books that might help you to understand RONR, send me a message.  (But you have to join the forum to use the message feature.  It's easy to join, though, and no salesman will call).

Start with the part that says a motion fails on a tie vote and that an appeal can be taken only from a ruling of the chair.... not from a vote that someone is unhappy with!  Oh, and that the chair in a committee or small board votes just like everyone else, both on motions and on appeals. 

The "negative motion" to not  raise the dues (to keep them at the current rate) was also inappropriate as the result of the failure of the motion to raise the dues is that the dues stay at the current rate.  It was, in essence, a motion to maintain the status quo, which is not proper.  The status quo will automatically be maintained unless a motion is adopted to change it.  When a motion to maintain the status quo fails, it leads to confusion as to what to do next.  (Answer:  Nothing.)   RONR in Brief does not get into that as it is a bit more complex, but it is covered in RONR. 

Maybe the management company thought that with a dues increase, it could be paid more. 

Merry Christmas! 

[Dan Honemann]

9 hours ago, Guest TazPB said:

Thanks everyone for your continued input! I have learned a lot from this discussion and will be checking on the resources mentioned for future meetings.

I will summarize what occurred:

1) A motion to raise the dues was made and seconded. The vote resulted in a tie with a for vote by members A & D and an against vote by the President and member C. Motion failed.

2) Next, a motion was made and seconded to keep the dues at the current rate. The vote resulted in a tie with a for vote by the President and member C and an against vote by members A & D. Motion failed.

3) Management company stated in an appeal the President can not vote. 

4) Member A stated an appeal was being used and took a vote on raising the dues. The President did not vote because he was told that he could not vote on an appeal by the management company. Member A and D voted for raising the dues, and Member C voted against it. Member A announced the motion carried. 

5) The meeting was adjourned. 

From my research combined with the great input from the this discussion, I now know several things were handled inappropriately, but I tried to only state the facts about what occurred at the meeting. 

 

This recitation of the facts inserts step 2 (the making and vote on a motion which should not have been offered), but this appears to be irrelevant, and steps 3 and 4 still make no sense at all. They would be no less meaningless if they had been:

"3) Management company stated in an appeal a question of privilege the President can not vote. 

"4) Member A stated an appeal a question of privilege was being used and took a vote on raising the dues. The President did not vote because he was told that he could not vote on an appeal a question of privilege by the management company. Member A and D voted for raising the dues, and Member C voted against it. Member A announced the motion carried."

These scenarios are so improbable that I cannot help but believe that facts are missing or incorrectly stated.

The only other additional bit of information provided is that it was member A, and not the chair, who declared that the motion was adopted, and then the meeting was adjourned, apparently without any points of order being raised. If this is all that we are going to get, I'll stick with what I said before. I don't see how any of this gives rise to a continuing breach.

But I don't believe the facts. 

 

[jstackpo]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

But I don't believe the facts. 

Come on, Scrooge.  Go open your presents.

 

[Dan Honemann]

8 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

Come on, Scrooge.  Go open your presents.

 

I did. All coal and switches, as usual.

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

But I don't believe the facts.

 

34 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

Come on, Scrooge.  Go open your presents.

 

25 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I did. All coal and switches, as usual.

LOL!!!  I love you two guys!  Merry Christmas!

[Dan Honemann]

And a Merry Christmas to you as well!

[Gary Novosielski]

...and to all a good night.

[Guest TazPB]

This discussion clearly shows that the board does not have any clue as to how to follow Robert’s Rules.

Why the facts might be unbelievable, I feel the summary is pretty accurate.

 

I’m in a rural area, so I’ll get a copy of RONR in Brief ordered from Amazon.

 

I do believe anyone that witnessed the meeting would say the President was denied the right to vote. However, the President did not push back and did not try to vote because of the advice provided by the management company. It’s now clear that point of order should have been called, but wasn’t. Maybe it’s the President’s responsibility to know that they can vote, and, as a result, it is their fault they they did not vote (instead of being denied the right to vote)? Another way to look at it, if the President doesn’t understand the rules, can they be denied the right to vote or does the President have the responsibility to understand Robert’s Rules and, therefore, it is their lack of understanding that prevented them from voting?

 

In this case the board had the power to raise the dues, so if a continuous breach is occurring, can only someone on the board call point of order or can anyone in the HOA call point of order? 

[Gary Novosielski]

If your bylaws follow the standard model in RONR, your membership is a superior body to the board, and can raise a point of order that the board violated the rules, and assert that this is a continuing breach, but this would have to be done at a membership meeting.  

[Gödel Fan]

9 minutes ago, Guest TazPB said:

This discussion clearly shows that the board does not have any clue as to how to follow Robert’s Rules.

 

Why the facts might be unbelievable, I feel the summary is pretty accurate.

 

 

I’m in a rural area, so I’ll get a copy of RONR in Brief ordered from Amazon.

 

 

I do believe anyone that witnessed the meeting would say the President was denied the right to vote. However, the President did not push back and did not try to vote because of the advice provided by the management company. It’s now clear that point of order should have been called, but wasn’t. Maybe it’s the President’s responsibility to know that they can vote, and, as a result, it is their fault they they did not vote (instead of being denied the right to vote)? Another way to look at it, if the President doesn’t understand the rules, can they be denied the right to vote or does the President have the responsibility to understand Robert’s Rules and, therefore, it is their lack of understanding that prevented them from voting?

 

 

 

In this case the board had the power to raise the dues, so if a continuous breach is occurring, can only someone on the board call point of order or can anyone in the HOA call point of order? 

 

 

It's not clear to me that a point of order should have been raised.  The chair should have taken the count, announced that the motion had failed, and continued with the meeting.  Non-members (such as the management company) shouldn't have been entertained for the purpose of making erroneous claims.  

If, as you say, no one present would say the President was denied the right to vote, I guess I'll reunite with the majority here and stop arguing.  Yes, it is a member's responsibility to know the rules and their rights, but that doesn't, in general, justify tricking them into giving them up.  The President, similarly, has a special obligation to know the rules they are charged with following.

If the board has the power to raise the dues, and if this is a continuing breach (which you don't seem to think it is), a point of order could be raised at a board meeting by a board member, or by a member of the HOA at an HOA meeting.  A non-board member could not raise a point of order at a board meeting.  

However, I present for everyone's entertainment the following scenario.  A motion to amend something previously adopted is made (at a board meeting), with notice, and fails, on a vote of 4-4 (or something like that).  This thing being previously adopted has an impact on the rights and responsibilities of all members in the organization.  A member, not being familiar with the rules, says "I appeal."  The chair, also being unfamiliar with the rules but having made up some in his own head, nods sagely and says "ah, yes, an appeal, a very smart maneuver.  The effect of this appeal, which may be demanded by a single member, is that we will vote again on the question just decided, except that Bob (Bob having voted in the negative) may not vote."  A vote is held, and, lo and behold, the motion passes.  (Of course, as many of those who have already commented on this question will point out, we don't know that the non-Bob board members repeated the same votes, but we do know it now passes 4-3.)  

No one raised a point of order at any time, but a board member was arbitrarily denied the right to vote, and as a result, members of the organization have now had changes to their own membership status and their rights.  Certainly, Bob should have stood up for himself, but he didn't.  Is this a continuing breach?  If not, fine.  If so: does it become less of one if the chair is operating on the advice of a management company?  I'd say clearly not.  How about if, in a plot twist reminiscent of M. Night Shymalan, Bob is, in fact, the chair, and he has incorrectly ruled that he may not vote?  I suspect some who said it was a continuing breach in the first instance will say this is not, perhaps because it boils down to the chair not voting, but it seems obvious to me that the logical situation hasn't changed simply because Bob's physicality has changed.  

[Weldon Merritt]

4 hours ago, Gödel Fan said:

However, I present for everyone's entertainment the following scenario.  A motion to amend something previously adopted is made (at a board meeting), with notice, and fails, on a vote of 4-4 (or something like that).  This thing being previously adopted has an impact on the rights and responsibilities of all members in the organization.  A member, not being familiar with the rules, says "I appeal."  The chair, also being unfamiliar with the rules but having made up some in his own head, nods sagely and says "ah, yes, an appeal, a very smart maneuver.  The effect of this appeal, which may be demanded by a single member, is that we will vote again on the question just decided, except that Bob (Bob having voted in the negative) may not vote."  A vote is held, and, lo and behold, the motion passes.  (Of course, as many of those who have already commented on this question will point out, we don't know that the non-Bob board members repeated the same votes, but we do know it now passes 4-3.)  

No one raised a point of order at any time, but a board member was arbitrarily denied the right to vote, and as a result, members of the organization have now had changes to their own membership status and their rights.  Certainly, Bob should have stood up for himself, but he didn't.  Is this a continuing breach?  If not, fine.  If so: does it become less of one if the chair is operating on the advice of a management company?  I'd say clearly not.  How about if, in a plot twist reminiscent of M. Night Shymalan, Bob is, in fact, the chair, and he has incorrectly ruled that he may not vote?  I suspect some who said it was a continuing breach in the first instance will say this is not, perhaps because it boils down to the chair not voting, but it seems obvious to me that the logical situation hasn't changed simply because Bob's physicality has changed.  

It seems to me that there is a vast difference between the chair erronously believing (whether due to bad advice or any  other reason) that he cannot vote, and the chair arbitrarily saying that (non-chair) Bob cannot vote. There are a lot of erroneous (but persistent) myths about the chair's voting rights (or lack of rights), but none that I know of that would give even a remotely plausible basis for arbitrarily singling out some other member as not being able to vote. I admit that the chair's arbitarty ruling that Bob cannot vote is more troubling than if the chair fails to cast his own vote due to erronsous advice, but I still am not convinced that there would be a continuing breach unless Bob appeals the chair's ruling, or is somehow physically prevented from voting.

[Gödel Fan]

Just now, Weldon Merritt said:

It seems to me that there is a vast difference between the chair erronously believing (whether due to bad advice or any  other reason) that he cannot vote, and the chair arbitrarily saying that (non-chair) Bob cannot vote. There are a lot of erroneous (but persistent) myths about the chair's voting rights (or lack of rights), but none that I know of that would give even a remotely plausible basis for arbitrarily singling out some other member as not being able to vote. I admit that the chair's arbitarty ruling that Bob cannot vote is more troubling than if the chair fails to cast his own vote due to erronsous advice, but I still am not convinced that there would be a continuing breach unless Bob appeals the chair's ruling, or is somehow physically prevented from voting.

I agree, those two things are quite different.  If the chair erroneously believes that he cannot vote, he just won't vote.  My question, though, is about him specifically ruling that he may note vote - and I don't particularly care on what basis he makes this wrong decision.  It's true that there are lots of myths about chairs voting, but all I can see is that this makes him more likely to rule incorrectly on this, not that it makes doing so less of a serious problem.

Regarding a continuing breach in particular - maybe I'm missing something, but why does it matter if Bob appeals or not?  Isn't the point of deciding if there's a continuing breach or not that, if there is one, timeliness requirements will not prevent raising a point of order later than one normally could be raised?  I also fail to see why it would be different, in principle, if Bob is physically prevented from voting, or if his vote just isn't counted, or whatever.

[Weldon Merritt]

11 hours ago, Gödel Fan said:

I agree, those two things are quite different.  If the chair erroneously believes that he cannot vote, he just won't vote.  My question, though, is about him specifically ruling that he may note vote - and I don't particularly care on what basis he makes this wrong decision.  It's true that there are lots of myths about chairs voting, but all I can see is that this makes him more likely to rule incorrectly on this, not that it makes doing so less of a serious problem.

Regarding a continuing breach in particular - maybe I'm missing something, but why does it matter if Bob appeals or not?  Isn't the point of deciding if there's a continuing breach or not that, if there is one, timeliness requirements will not prevent raising a point of order later than one normally could be raised?  I also fail to see why it would be different, in principle, if Bob is physically prevented from voting, or if his vote just isn't counted, or whatever.

As I said, your hypothetical situation is more troubling than if the chair erronsously believe the he, himself, cannot vote (whether or not he makes a formal ruling to that effect). And after sleeping on it, I agree that Bob's failure to appeal has no bearing on whetrher there is a continuing breach. But I am still troubled by the notion that Bob could just acquiesce in the chair's ruling, not even attempt to vote, and then later raise a point of order. Certainly, if he ignored the chair's ruling, attempted to vote, and was either physically prevented from voting or he did vote but hisi vote was ignored, that is a different matter entirely.

But let's assume that the chair's arbitrary ruling that Bob cannot vote is a continuing breach, whether or not Bob attenpts to vote anyway. Even so, I would contend that the chair's own erroneous failure to vote is not a continuous breach. The difference, as I see it, is that the chair has a neutral (albeit erroneous) basis for believing that the chair cannot vote; but in the scenario as you stated it, there is not even a semi-plausible basis for ruling that Bob can't vote. Certainly, Bob's having voted in the negative cannot be a basis, becasue he obviusly was not the only one. I think that if the chair stated some speific neutral basis for the ruling (not just. "Bob, you can't vote," but some basis that would apply to any simularly-situated member), there would be no continuing breach, and Bob would need to appeal immediately.

[Gödel Fan]

Just now, Weldon Merritt said:

As I said, your hypothetical situation is more troubling than if the chair erronsously believe the he, himself, cannot vote (whether or not he makes a formal ruling to that effect). And after sleeping on it, I agree that Bob's failure to appeal has no bearing on whetrher there is a continuing breach. But I am still troubled by the notion that Bob could just acquiesce in the chair's ruling, not even attempt to vote, and then later raise a point of order. Certainly, if he ignored the chair's ruling, attempted to vote, and was either physically prevented from voting or he did vote but hisi vote was ignored, that is a different matter entirely.

But let's assume that the chair's arbitrary ruling that Bob cannot vote is a continuing breach, whether or not Bob attenpts to vote anyway. Even so, I would contend that the chair's own erroneous failure to vote is not a continuous breach. The difference, as I see it, is that the chair has a neutral (albeit erroneous) basis for believing that the chair cannot vote; but in the scenario as you stated it, there is not even a semi-plausible basis for ruling that Bob can't vote. Certainly, Bob's having voted in the negative cannot be a basis, becasue he obviusly was not the only one. I think that if the chair stated some speific neutral basis for the ruling (not just. "Bob, you can't vote," but some basis that would apply to any simularly-situated member), there would be no continuing breach, and Bob would need to appeal immediately.

I guess the part I'm not understanding, then, is this, for lack of a better term, epistemic approach to a continuing breach.  I would have thought that whether or not something is a continuing breach would depend only on the facts of the matter, not, granting that the initial action was incorrect, whether or not the chair could have had a plausible basis for his incorrect ruling.  I agree entirely that, for the reasons you say, it's easier to believe that one is a mistake than the other (although not assured - maybe the chair secretly wanted the dues to be increased, but thought that politically it would be best for him to appear to be fighting the dues increase).  I guess I just don't see the connection between that hypothetical thought process and whether or not it's a continuing breach.

[Weldon Merritt]

4 hours ago, Gödel Fan said:

I guess the part I'm not understanding, then, is this, for lack of a better term, epistemic approach to a continuing breach.  I would have thought that whether or not something is a continuing breach would depend only on the facts of the matter, not, granting that the initial action was incorrect, whether or not the chair could have had a plausible basis for his incorrect ruling.  I agree entirely that, for the reasons you say, it's easier to believe that one is a mistake than the other (although not assured - maybe the chair secretly wanted the dues to be increased, but thought that politically it would be best for him to appear to be fighting the dues increase).  I guess I just don't see the connection between that hypothetical thought process and whether or not it's a continuing breach.

I agree that whether there is a continung breach depends on the facts. But in this instance, the facts are that the chair had a neutral, but erronsouus, basis for believing that he could not vote (i..e., the chair--whoever that might be at the time) cannot vote on an appeal, but he had no neutral basis for ruling that Bob cannot vote. At least you did not provide one in your hypothetical.

It is, of course, always possible that the chair's true motives are different from his stated reasons, but since we are not mind readers, we can go only by what the chair states.

[Gödel Fan]

I'll write it off to my incomplete education, because I still do not see why the basis for the decision even enters into a discussion as to whether or not it is a continuing breach.