Re-Voting

[DJ100]

This seems really complex to me and I can't find the answer, but I was hoping someone could quickly and easily provide the answer:

We apparently voted to approve something in the past. However, the item was rejected higher up and returned to us to be revised. Some people are saying since "99% of it is the same" we don't need to vote on it again. Additionally, they are saying, they can simply make minor changes and send it right back up the chain of command without a vote.

There are a few issues with this:

1.) The 99% number is likely inaccurate. (It's probably closer to 90% though.)

2.) There is no record of this "vote" ever being taken.

3.) If this vote was taken, it was likely taken in an old/former department. (This is why I don't think our new department has a record of this vote.)

4.) The majority of people that voted "yes/approve" on it the first time would like to vote "no/do not approve" this time. (Those saying it is 99% the same are strongly suggesting we have to vote the same on it again and if we don't, then they have the right to say "you voted yes on it the first time" and since it is only minor changes, we can make those adjustments and send it right back up the chain again...)

5.) The majority of the people who would like to vote no this time also admit they would vote yes if there were a few minor changes first. However, the 99% people, don't want those changes as it would affect them (slightly) negatively (i.e., more work).

So what does Robert's Rules of Order say about these issues?

Do we get to or have to vote again when something is sent back for revisions? 

Once an issue is voted on (if it was; which is probably another issue in itself!), can we vote on it again and can we change our vote?

Any other advice is greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

[Dan Honemann]

18 minutes ago, DJ100 said:

This seems really complex to me and I can't find the answer, but I was hoping someone could quickly and easily provide the answer:

We apparently voted to approve something in the past. However, the item was rejected higher up and returned to us to be revised. 

Let's start with this.

Apparently there is something in your governing documents which requires that action taken by your department be approved by some entity "higher up" before it becomes effective. What exactly do your governing documents say about this?

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

I think this is a case of amending something previously adopted (which see in RONR) if you are the same body (department) that approved the thing or a successor body that is responsible for the actions of the old body. Otherwise, it would be a new main motion. Either way, a vote is required unless you obtain unanimous consent, in a meeting.

[DJ100]

Not being smart here: What governing documents? (This is part of the problem too.) (The previous department had nothing. The new department is creating documents as we work our way through our first year of existence.)

 

[Joshua Katz]

2 minutes ago, DJ100 said:

Not being smart here: What governing documents? (This is part of the problem too.) (The previous department had nothing. The new department is creating documents as we work our way through our first year of existence.)

 

Well, setting aside any other resulting problems from this: please give us some context for this higher-up body that rejected and revised your decision.  What is your relationship, and how do they have that power (if they do at all)?

[DJ100]

Several layers:

President

  -----> Policy Committee (PC)

Vice-President

Associate VP

Department (old one and now new one)

In this case, the VP and/or AVP sent it back for multiple, but "small" revisions. 

(Thanks everyone!) 

[Joshua Katz]

Okay, now - do they have that power?  

[DJ100]

So as I've typed things here, the 99% side keeps insisting that the "re-vote side" doesn't have the right to hold a re-vote. They are standing strong on their minor changes don't give us the right to re-vote. Silliness. Fix a few things and we will pass it 100% in the affirmative. 

 

[Joshua Katz]

12 minutes ago, DJ100 said:

So as I've typed things here, the 99% side keeps insisting that the "re-vote side" doesn't have the right to hold a re-vote. They are standing strong on their minor changes don't give us the right to re-vote. Silliness. Fix a few things and we will pass it 100% in the affirmative. 

 

Okay, but that's not what I asked.  I'll assume the higher power had the ability to "reject" it in some way, and now you want to pass a different motion.  In my opinion, it's probably a new topic since the old one, in that case, is dead, and requires a simple main motion in its new form.

If the higher organization lacks that authority, but you're choosing to let them get away with it, I'd say it requires the motion to rescind/amend something previously adopted, which requires a higher vote threshold.

In any case, you certainly can't adopt a new motion without, well, adopting it.  Unless the higher power has the power to simply modify your decisions without your consent.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

9 hours ago, DJ100 said:

 

S1.) We apparently voted to approve something in the past.

kg: "We"? Who is "we"? -- President? VP? Associate VP? Policy Committee? Department?

9 hours ago, DJ100 said:

S2.) However, the item was rejected higher up and returned to us to be revised.

kg: "Us"? Who is "us"?

9 hours ago, DJ100 said:

S3.) Some people are saying since "99% of it is the same" we don't need to vote on it again.

kg: If you are going to change one iota, then there must be a vote. -- Else, without a vote, no change has been "approved" by "you"(?!).

9 hours ago, DJ100 said:

S4.) Additionally, they are saying, they can simply make minor changes and send it right back up the chain of command without a vote.

kg: "They" can make minor changes? -- Who is "they"? Does "they" vote, or just passively push X along?

S5.) Do we get to or have to vote again when something is sent back for revisions? 

kg: Yes. -- How else will the "approval" occur at all?

S6.) Once an issue is voted on (if it was; which is probably another issue in itself!), can we vote on it again and can we change our vote?

kg: You are free to AMEND that which has been adopted but found to be flawed. So, YES.

 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

9 hours ago, DJ100 said:

Not being smart here: What governing documents? (This is part of the problem too.) (The previous department had nothing. The new department is creating documents as we work our way through our first year of existence.)

 

I'm somewhat confused.  What sort of an organization are you?   Is RONR your parliamentary authority?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Late brain storm . . .

***

Perhaps the original poster is confusing:

(a.) adopting the whole motion again, with modification;

vs.

(b.) adopting an AMENDMENT, whereby a single word (or more) is all that is "adopted" -- to be either INSERTED or to be STRUCK OUT.

***

That would explain his "chain of custody" to fit a common practice. -- Upper echelon people say, "Tweak here, and tweak there, and we shall then rubber-stamp it as satisfactory." -- And the lower echelon people say, "OK. Will do."

In such a case, the answer to the original question (of many) is "No, you don't vote on the whole enchilada again. -- You vote on the specific amendment."

***

Or my hunch could be all wet.

 

[SaintCad]

But the big picture answer is that there does need to be a vote on something.  Maybe it is Amend Something Previously Adopted or maybe a simple Amendment or maybe vote on a new main motion, we don't really know yet.  The point is that the believe that there should not be another vote at all on anything is erroneous.