Validity of Vote When Several Errors Are ade

[Guest Jerry]

In a recent meeting a motion was made, and a second received. Discussion followed.  After a period of time a member was recognized and he made a motion to table. Before a second, another member (not recognized by Chair) interrupted and requested a "break". The break was granted. When the meeting reconvened discussion continued. As the discussion continued, the same member who previously requested the break, and again without being recognized, called the question. Without a vote (I believe 2/3 is required) the discussion ended and a vote, on the original motion, was taken.  As there were several errors made, is the vote valid?

[jstackpo]

Did anybody raise points of order as each rule infraction came along?  

If not, then the vote is valid and the motion was adopted, or defeated if that is the way the vote went.

[J. J.]

21 minutes ago, Guest Jerry said:

In a recent meeting a motion was made, and a second received. Discussion followed.  After a period of time a member was recognized and he made a motion to table. Before a second, another member (not recognized by Chair) interrupted and requested a "break". The break was granted. When the meeting reconvened discussion continued. As the discussion continued, the same member who previously requested the break, and again without being recognized, called the question. Without a vote (I believe 2/3 is required) the discussion ended and a vote, on the original motion, was taken.  As there were several errors made, is the vote valid?

The short answer is, yes the vote is valid. 

The errors were basically that the member interrupted another speaker,  used the term "break" instead of "Recess," and that chair did not put the the question of the Previous Question.  These errors would have been subject to a Point of Order, but the Point of Order would have had to have been made at the time of the breach (p. 251, ll. 3-7).

Edited February 16, 2019 at 03:10 AM by J. J.

[Richard Brown]

In addition to the errors pointed out by J.J., the member who moved for the "break" and who "called the question" had not been recognized by the chair.  As with the other errors, however, those breaches would have required a timely  (immediate)  point of order and none was made, so the results stand.

We sometimes refer to the rule requiring a timely point of order for most breaches in procedure as the "You snooze, you lose" rule.  If you don't raise a point of order immediately, it is deemed waived.