A mistake was made, now what

[Guest Bigred73]

The chair of a meeting ruled mistakenly that several individuals at the meeting were not eligible to vote on a motion. I t was voted on at the meeting and passed. Several days later it was discovered that they were eligible to vote on the motion.  Should the motion be brought up at the next meeting with a re-vote or does the first vote stand?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Could their votes have affected the results?

[jstackpo]

Since no point of order was raised at the time of the ruling (and can't be until the next meeting), the vote stands.

You are free to raise a point  --  this looks like a "continuing breach", p. 251  --  or simply move to rescind the previously adopted motion (if you didn't like it), or do nothing if you are happy with the result.

You don't "re-vote" on the original motion  --  that is over and done with.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I am double-clutching. -- Didn't we see a similar thread recently?

I looked up the status of such an error (legitimate voting members who are barred from casting a vote) in RONR regarding an election.

But an election is not the same thing as a motion.

Thus my quandary -- If such an election miscue makes the election null and void, then, in this case, won't the "adopted" motion music make the motion to be null and void?

(Upon a proper Point of Order, of course.)

See page 445, which links to page 251.

Quote

*******************************

>> §46    nominations and elections    445     <<

CONTESTING THE ANNOUNCED RESULT OF AN ELECTION.

Depending on the circumstances, the
voting body may be able to order a recount if an election was
conducted by ballot (see p. 419, ll. 1‑9), roll‑call vote (see
p. 422, ll. 30‑33), or counted vote (see p. 411, ll. 19‑21).
In the case of a roll‑call vote, a recapitulation may be possible
(see p. 422, ll. 1‑8). It may be possible, under some cir‑
cumstances, to order that the election be voted on again by
another method (see Retaking a Vote, p. 285).
    Otherwise, an election may be contested only by raising
a point of order. The general rule is that such a point of order
must be timely, as described on page 250, line 30 to page
251, line 2. If an election is disputed on the ground that a
quorum was not present, the provisions on page 349, lines
21‑28, apply. Other exceptions to the general timeliness re-
quirement are those that come within the five categories listed
on page 251, lines 9‑23, in which cases a point of order can
be made at any time during the continuance in office of the
individual declared elected. For example:

•    If an individual does not meet the qualifications for the
    post established in the bylaws, his or her election is tan‑
    tamount to adoption of a main motion that conflicts with
    the bylaws.
•    If there was a previously valid election for the same term,
    the subsequent election of another is the adoption of a
    main motion conflicting with one still in force.
•    If the votes of nonmembers or absentees in the election
    affect the result, action has been taken in violation of the
    fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right
    to vote is limited to the members of an organization who
    are actually present at the time the vote is taken.    30
•    If an election to fill a vacancy is held without required
    previous notice, action has been taken in violation of a
    rule protecting the rights of absentees.
•    If a number of members sufficient to affect the result are
    improperly prevented from voting in an election, action
    has been taken in violation of a rule protecting a basic
    right of the individual member.
*******************************
>> §23    point of order    251      <<

    The only exceptions to the rule that a point of order must
be made at the time of the breach arise in connection with
breaches that are of a continuing nature, in which case a point
of order can be made at any time during the continuance of
the breach. Instances of this kind occur when:

a)     a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the
    bylaws (or constitution) of the organization or assembly,*
b.)    a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with a
    main motion previously adopted and still in force, unless
    the subsequently adopted motion was adopted by the
    vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted
    motion,
c)     any action has been taken in violation of applicable pro-
    cedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law,
d)     any action has been taken in violation of a fundamental
    principle of parliamentary law (p. 263), or
e)     any action has been taken in violation of a rule protecting
    absentees, a rule in the bylaws requiring a vote to be taken
    by ballot, or a rule protecting a basic right of an individual
    member (pp. 263‑64).

In all such cases, it is never too late to raise a point of order
since any action so taken is null and void.
*******************************

The text of interest is this:

• (p. 445) If a number of members sufficient to affect the result are
    improperly prevented from voting in an election, action
    has been taken in violation of a rule protecting a basic
    right of the individual member.

• (p. 251) d) any action has been taken in violation of a fundamental
    principle of parliamentary law,

• (p. 251)  In all such cases, it is never too late to raise a point of order
since any action so taken is null and void.

***

Thus RONR confirms that, for an election, a Point of Order is timely while the contested elected party sits.

Q. So, what happens, upon a Point of Order for an adopted motion?

Does the chair declare the "adopted" motion null and void. Or not?

 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

See "Remedy for violation of the right to vote" in RONR 11th ed., pp. 252-253.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

>>     252    rules of order    §23<<

Quote

REMEDY FOR VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO
 VOTE. If one or more members have been denied the right
to vote, or the right to attend all or part of a meeting during
which a vote was taken, it is never too late to raise a point of
order concerning the action taken in denying the basic rights
of the individual members—and if there is any possibility that
 the members’ vote(s) would have affected the outcome, then
the results of the vote must be declared invalid if the point of
order is sustained. If there is no such possibility, the results
of the vote itself can be made invalid only if the point of order
is raised immediately following the chair’s announcement of
 the vote. If the vote was such that the number of members
excluded from participating would not have affected the out‑
come, a member may wish, in the appropriate circumstances,
to move to Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted
(35), to move to Reconsider (37), or to renew a motion (38),
 arguing that comments in debate by the excluded members
could have led to a different result; but the action resulting    
from the vote is not invalidated by a ruling in response to the
point of order.

So!

The net result will be:

(a.) for those motions which were not roll call votes nor rising counted votes, the motion stands.

(b.) for those motions which were voted on by non-numeric motions, like by-voice or by-rising, the motion may be declared null and void only if a point of order is raised and the number of disenfranchised voters is EQUAL TO or GREATER THAN the margin of the affirmative vote total.

***

Are we agreed that #a and #b is what p. 252 implies?

For ordinary voting methods applied to a motion, since there is no known margin of victory from which to calculate the swing vote influence of the barred members, such a motion shall stand.

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

I am double-clutching. -- Didn't we see a similar thread recently?

Perhaps you're thinking of this one, where you got it right to begin with and then went astray. 

 

[Dan Honemann]

52 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

>>     252    rules of order    §23<<

So!

The net result will be:

(a.) for those motions which were not roll call votes nor rising counted votes, the motion stands.

(b.) for those motions which were voted on by non-numeric motions, like by-voice or by-rising, the motion may be declared null and void only if a point of order is raised and the number of disenfranchised voters is EQUAL TO or GREATER THAN the margin of the affirmative vote total.

***

Are we agreed that #a and #b is what p. 252 implies?

For ordinary voting methods applied to a motion, since there is no known margin of victory from which to calculate the swing vote influence of the barred members, such a motion shall stand.

No, I don't think that you have this right at all.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

OK. The pieces of the puzzle are coming together.

Piecing together the sentences from page 252, I get this (now, anyway):

• Although a Point of Order can be raised on behalf of the blocked-off member(s) . . .

>> . . . the action resulting from the vote is not invalidated by a ruling in response to the point of order.

A double negative implies the opposite of the verb, so

• . . . "the action . . . is 'validated' . . . (no matter how the point of order is ruled upon)."

Which makes me ponder about the Point of Order's "point" ("point of no return?") -- The Point of Order, no matter how it is ruled upon, won't change the result of the vote.

Right?

***

If that is so, then isn't improperly noticed business the same thing, as mentioned in the other thread?

• If a single member is deliberately excluded from the official previous notice as mailed out, then the motion(s) resulting will stand, despite any Point of Order raised afterward by the excluded member(s), regarding the charge that [he/she/they] were excluded from the notice.

Right?

The Point of Order, although it can be raised, is raised to no end, other than after-the-fact acknowledgement of the exclusion.

Is that about right?

***

 

[Dan Honemann]

13 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

OK. The pieces of the puzzle are coming together.

Piecing together the sentences from page 252, I get this (now, anyway):

• Although a Point of Order can be raised on behalf of the blocked-off member(s) . . .

>> . . . the action resulting from the vote is not invalidated by a ruling in response to the point of order.

A double negative implies the opposite of the verb, so

• . . . "the action . . . is 'validated' . . . (no matter how the point of order is ruled upon)."

Which makes me ponder about the Point of Order's "point" ("point of no return?") -- The Point of Order, no matter how it is ruled upon, won't change the result of the vote.

Right?

***

If that is so, then isn't improperly noticed business the same thing, as mentioned in the other thread?

• If a single member is deliberately excluded from the official previous notice as mailed out, then the motion(s) resulting will stand, despite any Point of Order raised afterward by the excluded member(s), regarding the charge that [he/she/they] were excluded from the notice.

Right?

The Point of Order, although it can be raised, is raised to no end, other than after-the-fact acknowledgement of the exclusion.

Is that about right?

***

 

No, none of this is right.

Whenever there is any possibility that the votes of members who have been denied the right to vote would have affected the outcome of a vote, the results of that vote must be declared to be invalid.  (RONR, 11th ed., p. 252, ll. 20-27)