Error discovered post adjournment

[Concerned_Congregant]

What are the options available if a voting error is discovered after a meeting has been adjourned and an invalid vote allowed the passage of a motion?  Votes were changed after the result was announced, without querying the body if that was acceptable.  If something can be done to redress the issue, how is this process handled?

Thanks for your assistance!

Edited January 29, 2019 at 01:30 AM by Concerned_Congregant
Add more information.

[Chris Harrison]

See Official Interpretation 2006-18.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

How were votes changed?

[Gary Novosielski]

22 hours ago, Concerned_Congregant said:

What are the options available if a voting error is discovered after a meeting has been adjourned and an invalid vote allowed the passage of a motion?  Votes were changed after the result was announced, without querying the body if that was acceptable.  If something can be done to redress the issue, how is this process handled?

Thanks for your assistance!

Are you saying that after the vote, members requested to have their votes changed?  

If nobody raised a point of order at the time, I suspect that any objection is no longer timely.  But a more complete description would certainly be helpful.

[Richard Brown]

On 1/28/2019 at 7:28 PM, Concerned_Congregant said:

What are the options available if a voting error is discovered after a meeting has been adjourned and an invalid vote allowed the passage of a motion?

As others have already said, we need more information in order to properly answer your question.

[Concerned_Congregant]

Let me try to clarify ... a vote was taken on a motion which required a 2/3 majority to pass.  It started with a voice vote, which was inconclusive, so a standing vote was taken.  The number standing was less than the required 2/3, and they asked the chair to cast the decisive vote.  While the chair was contemplating, a couple of people which had not been standing, rose and their change in vote met the 2/3 requirement.  The chair then recognized a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended. 

Does that help?  

 

[Joshua Katz]

Well, I still don't know exactly what happened, but I think I know enough to say that, so far as I can tell, no error occurred which results in a continuing breach, and thus, any objection would have need to have been raised at the meeting. If no point of order was made in a timely fashion, the ruling of the chair on all matters, whatever it was, stands, so far as I can tell.

[Richard Brown]

33 minutes ago, Concerned_Congregant said:

Let me try to clarify ... a vote was taken on a motion which required a 2/3 majority to pass.  It started with a voice vote, which was inconclusive, so a standing vote was taken.  The number standing was less than the required 2/3, and they asked the chair to cast the decisive vote.  While the chair was contemplating, a couple of people which had not been standing, rose and their change in vote met the 2/3 requirement.  The chair then recognized a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended. 

Does that help?  

 

Did the chair ever announce whether the motion had carried? I don't see where there was ever an announcement and the chair was contemplating whether to cast a deciding vote when two other members stood up and the chair then recognized the motion to adjourn. I'm not sure at all that the motion was adopted or declared adopted. It looks to me like the meeting adjourned before the vote was completed and the result announced.

Also, members have a right to change their votes up until the results are announced. If two numbers decided to vote or to change their votes before the results had been announced, their votes should have counted. It looks to me like the motion might have caried, but the chair never announced that it had carried.

Edited January 31, 2019 at 04:12 AM by Richard Brown
Typographical corrections

[Richard Brown]

13 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

If no point of order was made in a timely fashion, the ruling of the chair on all matters, whatever it was, stands, so far as I can tell.

What was the ruling of the chair? That the meeting was adjourned?

[Joshua Katz]

I assume the chair said something (hopefully) about the pending motion. If not, well, I guess that means it didn't carry?

[Gary Novosielski]

There seems to have been either sloppy chairing, or perhaps you omitted some details.  But the vote changes occurred before the vote was complete (the chair had not yet decided whether to vote) so that's allowable.

Presuming the chair dealt with the final result by announcing it, or failing that, it was generally understood that the motion had passed, then the result stands (improper, but too late to be fixed).

It appears that the errors were not severe enough to create a continuing breach.  A point of order at this stage would, in my view, no longer be timely, based on the details you've provided.

[Josh Martin]

16 hours ago, Concerned_Congregant said:

Let me try to clarify ... a vote was taken on a motion which required a 2/3 majority to pass.  It started with a voice vote, which was inconclusive, so a standing vote was taken.  The number standing was less than the required 2/3, and they asked the chair to cast the decisive vote.  While the chair was contemplating, a couple of people which had not been standing, rose and their change in vote met the 2/3 requirement.  The chair then recognized a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended. 

Does that help?  

Yes, it helps tremendously.

“A member has a right to change his vote up to the time the result is announced; after that, he can make the change only by the unanimous consent of the assembly requested and granted, without debate, immediately following the chair's announcement of the result of the vote (see below).” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 408)

Since the final result of the standing vote had not yet been announced (as the chair was still contemplating how to cast his vote), members were free to cast or change their votes without seeking the assembly’s permission. So there was no error in this regard.

15 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Did the chair ever announce whether the motion had carried? I don't see where there was ever an announcement and the chair was contemplating whether to cast a deciding vote when two other members stood up and the chair then recognized the motion to adjourn. I'm not sure at all that the motion was adopted or declared adopted. It looks to me like the meeting adjourned before the vote was completed and the result announced.

If this is in fact the case, this was an error (although it is too late to correct it now), since the motion to adjourn cannot interrupt the taking of a vote.

6 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Presuming the chair dealt with the final result by announcing it, or failing that, it was generally understood that the motion had passed, then the result stands (improper, but too late to be fixed).

I’m not certain that the fact that “it was generally understood that the motion had passed” is sufficient.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

I’m not certain that the fact that “it was generally understood that the motion had passed” is sufficient.

Nor am I.

[Guest Zev]

No one mentioned the fact that the chairman contemplated the casting of his vote even before the negative vote was taken and the result announced. Also, there is a possibility of a 2/3 vote even without the two members changing sides or the chairman casting his vote. If the vote was interrupted by the adjournment then this event is troubling.

[Joshua Katz]

Just now, Guest Zev said:

No one mentioned the fact that the chairman contemplated the casting of his vote even before the negative vote was taken and the result announced. Also, there is a possibility of a 2/3 vote even without the two members changing sides or the chairman casting his vote. If the vote was interrupted by the adjournment then this event is troubling.

I agree that these are all problems, but I don't think any are subject to a later point of order. 

[Gary Novosielski]

6 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Nor am I.

Well, then nor am I.   I'll just hope that the announcement was an omitted detail. 

I've been at some pretty sloppily chaired meetings where the closest the chair came to announcing a result was to say "Okay, good. What's next?" 

[Richard Brown]

12 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

No one mentioned the fact that the chairman contemplated the casting of his vote even before the negative vote was taken and the result announced.

We don't know that to be a fact. I'm fact, the original poster clarified that the president was contemplating casting the deciding vote, indicating to me that the negative vote was known and it was known that the chair's vote could affect the outcome.

[Concerned_Congregant]

Pardon the omission of the requested details.  I'm trying to be as vague as possible to avoid possible embarrassment to certain persons.  Hopefully, this additional explanation will assist.

The person that counted the standing vote (the chair's personal secretary) announced to the chair that they still needed one vote, since the 2/3 required majority had not been reached.  At that point, the chair contemporized that he wished to remain neutral, but was considering casting a voite.  At that point, to me, it would seem that the vote had ended, with all parties (except the chair) having made their vote by standing or remaining seated.  Before the vote was announced by the chair as having passed or failed to pass, someone that had been seated stood up, thus changing their vote.

At that point, the chair announce that the motion had passed, and entertained a motion to adjourn.

 

[Richard Brown]

33 minutes ago, Concerned_Congregant said:

Pardon the omission of the requested details.  I'm trying to be as vague as possible to avoid possible embarrassment to certain persons.  Hopefully, this additional explanation will assist.

The person that counted the standing vote (the chair's personal secretary) announced to the chair that they still needed one vote, since the 2/3 required majority had not been reached.  At that point, the chair contemporized that he wished to remain neutral, but was considering casting a voite.  At that point, to me, it would seem that the vote had ended, with all parties (except the chair) having made their vote by standing or remaining seated.  Before the vote was announced by the chair as having passed or failed to pass, someone that had been seated stood up, thus changing their vote.

At that point, the chair announce that the motion had passed, and entertained a motion to adjourn.

 

Based on this latest information, it appears that the motion has been adopted and it is now too late to raise a point of order.....even if everything wasn't done exactly right.  A timely point of order would have been necessary.  The only remedy at this point is a motion to rescind the adopted motion by means of the motion to Amend or Rescind Something Previously adopted.  That motion requires a majority vote if previous notice is given.  Without previous notice, it requires a two thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership. 

Edited to add:  Since a two thirds vote was necessary to adopt the motion, it may not  be possible to rescind it with a majority vote.  More information is necessary.

 

Edited February 1, 2019 at 07:28 PM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction and added last paragraph

[Dan Honemann]

2 hours ago, Concerned_Congregant said:

Pardon the omission of the requested details.  I'm trying to be as vague as possible to avoid possible embarrassment to certain persons.  Hopefully, this additional explanation will assist.

The person that counted the standing vote (the chair's personal secretary) announced to the chair that they still needed one vote, since the 2/3 required majority had not been reached.  At that point, the chair contemporized that he wished to remain neutral, but was considering casting a voite.  At that point, to me, it would seem that the vote had ended, with all parties (except the chair) having made their vote by standing or remaining seated.  Before the vote was announced by the chair as having passed or failed to pass, someone that had been seated stood up, thus changing their vote.

At that point, the chair announce that the motion had passed, and entertained a motion to adjourn.

 

I don't see anything materially wrong with what occurred. Members have a right to change their votes before the result is announced by the chair, and apparently this is what happened. Thereafter, the chair announced the result of the vote. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/1/2019 at 1:53 PM, Concerned_Congregant said:

Pardon the omission of the requested details.  I'm trying to be as vague as possible to avoid possible embarrassment to certain persons.  Hopefully, this additional explanation will assist.

The person that counted the standing vote (the chair's personal secretary) announced to the chair that they still needed one vote, since the 2/3 required majority had not been reached.  At that point, the chair contemporized that he wished to remain neutral, but was considering casting a voite.  At that point, to me, it would seem that the vote had ended, with all parties (except the chair) having made their vote by standing or remaining seated.  Before the vote was announced by the chair as having passed or failed to pass, someone that had been seated stood up, thus changing their vote.

At that point, the chair announce that the motion had passed, and entertained a motion to adjourn.

 

I don't see anything substantially wrong with what the chair did. The chair was free to vote if that vote would have made a difference, and the votes were changed before the result was announced. Presumably, the changed votes allowed the motion to pass even without the chair's vote.  ]

Although it is now too late to raise a point of order, it seems to me that a it would not be well taken anyway as no rules appear to have been broken.

Edited February 3, 2019 at 11:46 PM by Gary Novosielski