Ratifying a vote that passed and was then found to not have a quorum

[J. J.]

4 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Well, I struggle to see any problem at all. It is null and void because it was adopted without a quorum, but otherwise was within the power of the assembly. Ratification is used when an action is within the power of an assembly but is taken outside of a quorate meeting. It seems to me that your explanation leaves out time's arrow and acts as if the assembly is saying "it's in effect and it isn't." The assembly is deciding, first, that it is not in effect, and, second, that it wishes it to be. 

 

If a motion is declare null and void (via the point of order) would be in order to approve the same motion during the same session? 

Assume that the motion "that 123 be authorized"  was adopted at an  inquorate meeting in May.  At the June meeting a point of order is raised that the motion there  was no quorum at the meeting when the motion "that 123 be authorized."   The point of order is found to be well taken.  The motion "that 123 be authorized (May)" is null and void.

Someone moves that "the motion 'that 123 be authorized(May),' be ratified." The assembly would be in the position of attempting to approve a motion that it just found null and void. 

Someone could make an new motion that is identical, in text, to the motion that was voided.  In most cases the new motion would be an original main motion.  The motion would be "that 123 be authorized(June)."

[Joshua Katz]

1 minute ago, J. J. said:

Someone moves that "the motion 'that 123 be authorized(May),' be ratified." The assembly would be in the position of attempting to approve a motion that it just found null and void. 

 

So what? We don't ratify things that are already valid.

1 minute ago, J. J. said:

 Someone could make an new motion that is identical, in text, to the motion that was voided.  In most cases the new motion would be an original main motion.  The motion would be "that 123 be authorized(June)."

And it would require the same vote threshold as ratify. What difference does it make whether they add the word "ratify" at the beginning of the sentence? Again, the only difference is some sort of formality for its own sake.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

11 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Someone moves that "the motion 'that 123 be authorized(May),' be ratified." The assembly would be in the position of attempting to approve a motion that it just found null and void. 

Is it the motion that is null and void? Or the vote which purported to adopt it?

[Gary Novosielski]

6 hours ago, Gary Brainerd, PhD said:

There was a written vote and the total number of actual votes was less than the quorum number  - that was present at the beginning. 

That proves nothing.  Quorum cannot be determined in this way since any number of members may have decided to abstain.  The way to determine if a quorum is present is to count the members in the room.  Counting the number of members who voted doesn't tell you that, and in my view would not constitute "clear and convincing proof" of the absence of a quorum.

[J. J.]

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

 

I disagree that the chair acknowledging that a quorum may not be present is effectively the same as a ruling that a quorum was not present. The chair’s prior statement in this regard, however, could certainly be used as a piece of evidence in making a ruling now that a quorum was not present at the time.

Though the chair did not state the it properly, "We don't have a quorum; we'll have to have another vote at the next meeting," I would still treat it as a ruling.

That said, it would be up to a future session to determine if the motion to ratify is in order or not.  It will come to that judgment call. 

 

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

That is what Mr. H said way back when, but apparently some of you just want to keep on talking.

No, some of see it a bit differently.  I think it is not so clear-cut as some  would like it to be.

Edited August 25, 2018 at 01:33 AM by Richard Brown

[J. J.]

37 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

So what? We don't ratify things that are already valid.

And it would require the same vote threshold as ratify. What difference does it make whether they add the word "ratify" at the beginning of the sentence? Again, the only difference is some sort of formality for its own sake.

In the first case, there has to be some possibly valid action to ratify.  I don't know if an action just found to be null and void could be ratified.

On the second, it would the time the motion go into effect,  in some cases.  A motion "that 123 be authorized" made in June and ratified in July would go into effect in June.  A motion "that 123 be authorized" made and adopted in June, will be in effect in June.

I was tempted to say "not a heck of a lot," but I think the effect could be this substantive difference.

 

Edited August 25, 2018 at 01:47 AM by J. J.

[Joshua Katz]

2 minutes ago, J. J. said:

In the first case, there has to be some possibly valid action to ratify.  I don't know if an action just found to be null and void could be ratified.

 

Things can be null and void for a variety of reasons. If you found it null and void because you never had the power to adopt it, that's one thing. If because there was no quorum, that's another matter.

2 minutes ago, J. J. said:

 On the second, it would the time the motion go into effect,  in some cases.  A motion "that 123 be authorized" made in June and ratified in July would go into effect in June, possibly.  A motion "that 123 be authorized" made and adopted in June, will be in effect in June.

 

Okay, fair enough.

[J. J.]

10 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Things can be null and void for a variety of reasons. If you found it null and void because you never had the power to adopt it, that's one thing. If because there was no quorum, that's another matter.

 

I think a motion found null and void is null and void.  One problem is the renewal question.   The assembly is being asked at one point to find the motion null and void, and them approve the exact same motion.  Technically, that might be a problem.