Appeal for an incorrect vote

[Guest Steve Lyne]

Our club held a special meeting to vote on some equipment to be purchased that wasn't originally allocated in the budget.  The vote was for the members to accept a special levy in which we would all contribute an equal share of the cost.  This was to be a one time levy, above and beyond our yearly dues, to cover the equipment costs.  Our president determined that we needed more that 75% of the club members present to vote and that the vote had to be greater than 75% to pass. The vote was defeated by 1%, this amounted to one or two people.  The meeting was adjourned.  It was later determined by the president that the actual vote count only required 66% (2/3) to pass.  In this case the vote would have passed.  We were told that since nobody raised this inconsistency during that meeting and before the meeting was adjourned that the old vote, although incorrect, stood.  Is this correct?  Could a member not launch an appeal?   

[Joshua Katz]

A member could have appealed at the meeting, but the time for that has passed. Nothing (but see below) stops you from making the motion again at a later meeting, though.

However, it's not clear to me that the motion was in order at all. Dues must be specified in the bylaws, and a motion to increase dues for this year strikes me as out of order. I imagine you could amend the bylaws and then amend them back, though - which would require notice and a 2/3 vote (or a majority of the entire membership voting in the affirmative).

Incidentally, 66% is less than 2/3. The easiest way to measure 2/3 is to forget about percentages and just note that there needs to be twice as many voting yes as no.

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, Guest Steve Lyne said:

This was to be a one time levy, above and beyond our yearly dues

 

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

Dues must be specified in the bylaws, and a motion to increase dues for this year strikes me as out of order. I imagine you could amend the bylaws and then amend them back

Or, more simply, they could amend the bylaws to authorize a levy, including details of who can set and authorize a levy and how (which could include the provisions that the president originally thought applied, or subsequently thought applied, or some other provisions). No need to amend them back.

"Members cannot be assessed any additional payment aside from their dues unless it is provided for in the bylaws." (p. 572)

Once the bylaws are amended, the body that is authorized to set and authorize a levy can consider doing so.

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, Guest Steve Lyne said:

We were told that since nobody raised this inconsistency during that meeting and before the meeting was adjourned that the old vote, although incorrect, stood.  Is this correct?

Yes, this is correct.

9 hours ago, Guest Steve Lyne said:

Could a member not launch an appeal?   

Not anymore. An appeal would have had to be raised at the time.

A member is free to make the motion again - assuming that the bylaws authorize the assembly to approve levies. If they do not, the bylaws would need to be amended to impose a levy.

Edited April 23, 2019 at 01:07 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

And, just to tie up a loose end I think I see: had the motion been adopted, it would not be too late now to raise a point of order, because such a levy, unless provided for in the bylaws, would violate the bylaws.

[Richard Brown]

17 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

And, just to tie up a loose end I think I see: had the motion been adopted, it would not be too late now to raise a point of order, because such a levy, unless provided for in the bylaws, would violate the bylaws.

I agree. Good point, Joshua. It would be what RONR calls a continuing breach. 

Edited April 23, 2019 at 02:52 PM by Richard Brown
Added last sentence

[Rob Elsman]

See Official Interpretaion 2006-18 on the official Robert's Rules website, www.robertsrules.com.

Edited April 23, 2019 at 04:00 PM by reelsman
Correct typo in citation.

[Richard Brown]

17 minutes ago, reelsman said:

See Official Interpretaion 2016-18 on the official Robert's Rules website, www.robertsrules.com.

I believe the interpretation is actually 2006-18, not 2016-18.  Also, the interpretation does not apply to a motion adopted in violation of the bylaws which creates a continuing breach.  It is about the vote required to adopt a motion which exceeds the scope of notice and whether a point of order regarding the vote must be made at the time of the breach (it must).  Here is a link to the official interpretation:  http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_18

 

[Rob Elsman]

You're correct. I will make the appropriate edit. Thank you for pointing it out.

[Rob Elsman]

Since I cannot see the bylaws, I cannot make any judgment about any possible provision for extraordinary levies or the vote that might be required to adopt one, if it is possible at all.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

And, just to tie up a loose end I think I see: had the motion been adopted, it would not be too late now to raise a point of order, because such a levy, unless provided for in the bylaws, would violate the bylaws.

Well, I think it is very possible that the bylaws already provide for levies.

We are told that “Our president determined that we needed more that 75% of the club members present to vote and that the vote had to be greater than 75% to pass. The vote was defeated by 1%, this amounted to one or two people.  The meeting was adjourned.  It was later determined by the president that the actual vote count only required 66% (2/3) to pass.”

It is not clear how the President made either of these determinations (or why he changed his mind), but it may be that they were based upon provisions in the organization’s bylaws relating to such levies.

I agree that if the bylaws do not authorize such levies, and a motion to impose a levy is adopted, this would be a continuing breach and a point of order could be raised at a later time.