Motions during voting, tabulation of votes, and after call to question prior to vote

[livingfractal]

Are there any motions which are in order during a vote, during tabulation of ballots, or after the call to question has been passed but prior to a roll call vote has begun?

 

for example, is a point of order pertaining to an ongoing vote in order during a roll call vote?

[Rob Elsman]

During voting and until the result is announced by the chair, the only motions that are in order are those that arise out of the voting.

There is no provision in RONR for passing out a "call to question".

[Josh Martin]

36 minutes ago, livingfractal said:

Are there any motions which are in order during a vote, during tabulation of ballots, 

During a vote, no, unless it’s a ballot vote, or if no member has actually voted yet. During tabulation of ballots, yes.

“Interruptions during the taking of a vote are permitted only before any member has actually voted, unless, as sometimes occurs in ballot voting, other business is being transacted during voting or tabulating.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 408)

36 minutes ago, livingfractal said:

or after the call to question has been passed but prior to a roll call vote has begun?

Yes. Motions which take precedence over the Previous Question are in order at this time.

36 minutes ago, livingfractal said:

for example, is a point of order pertaining to an ongoing vote in order during a roll call vote?

No. It would be raised immediately after the vote. 

8 minutes ago, reelsman said:

During voting and until the result is announced by the chair, the only motions that are in order are those that arise out of the voting.

My understanding, based on the rule on pg. 408 is that, once a member has actually voted in any vote other than a ballot vote, no motions are in order at all until the vote is completed. Motions that arise out of the voting would be made immediately following the vote.

It seems that more flexibility is permitted in a ballot vote, and the assembly may permit other business to be conducted during the ballot vote.

8 minutes ago, reelsman said:

There is no provision in RONR for passing out a "call to question".

No, there is not, but RONR notes the following:

”EQUAL APPLICATION OF RULES TO COLLOQUIAL FORMS SUCH AS "CALL FOR THE QUESTION." A motion such as "I call for [or "call"] the question" or "I move we vote now" is simply a motion for the Previous Question made in nonstandard form, and it is subject to all of the rules in this section. Care should be taken that failure to understand this fact does not lead to violation of members' rights of debate.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 202)

[livingfractal]

Thank you,

 

I’ve had a slight issue were everything at a legislative meeting during voting procedures and tabulation of votes was declared out of order even when voting had not began. It’s exasperated by the speaker allowing people to call the previous question or motion to adjourn without being recognized, as well as not providing a pregnant pause for higher order motions. It seems to be a tactic used by certain members to obstruct business they oppose. Coupled with the apathy of some members towards careful consideration of our legislative duties, and just wanting to “get out of here” it is bloody obnoxious. I kind of knew this would be a cultural issue in a Undergraduate Student Senate, but it’s proving difficult to draw the line between dilatory motions, and genuine will of the majority. The unfortunate fact being when the majority is dilatory or lax in duties, as is off to happen when involvement is low and a high portion of members are just resume building. 

[Josh Martin]

13 minutes ago, livingfractal said:

I’ve had a slight issue were everything at a legislative meeting during voting procedures and tabulation of votes was declared out of order even when voting had not began. 

Do you have specific examples of what you are referring to?

14 minutes ago, livingfractal said:

It’s exasperated by the speaker allowing people to call the previous question or motion to adjourn without being recognized, as well as not providing a pregnant pause for higher order motions. 

Yes, these are problems.

15 minutes ago, livingfractal said:

It seems to be a tactic used by certain members to obstruct business they oppose.

I don’t know what “it” is referring to here. You mentioned a number of things in the previous sentences.

15 minutes ago, livingfractal said:

I kind of knew this would be a cultural issue in a Undergraduate Student Senate, but it’s proving difficult to draw the line between dilatory motions, and genuine will of the majority. The unfortunate fact being when the majority is dilatory or lax in duties, as is off to happen when involvement is low and a high portion of members are just resume building. 

A dilatory motion is one which intended to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly. So I don’t really know what you mean by the majority being dilatory, since the will of the majority generally is the will of the assembly, and the majority presumably does not wish to obstruct its own will. I’m not sure whether dilatory is the word you are looking for.

The other allegations are not really parliamentary issues.

[Rob Elsman]

For one thing, there should be little delay after a roll call vote has been taken. The secretary's form should be so designed that a running total of the ayes and nays is kept as the voting proceeds. After the last vote is cast, it is merely a matter of the secretary's handing the president the totals. If this is done properly, there is no need to delay the proceedings with a tabulation.

[livingfractal]

An example is a motion to table, or a point of order that member didn’t receive recognition to move the previous question during debate when we have a list of members recognized to speak. 

 

As for a majority being dilatory. We have constitutional duties, and certain personal interest groups have coordinated campaigns for election under false pretense to obstruct our duties. The only solution is, of course, increasing involvement and recourse through the judicial branch for egregious behavior  assuming they don’t use our power of appointment to stack the judiciary. But like you said, that’s politics and not parliamentary procedure  

 

But yeah, a lot of my response was just complaining for the sake of complaining. 

[George Mervosh]

21 minutes ago, livingfractal said:

An example is a motion to table, or a point of order that member didn’t receive recognition to move the previous question during debate when we have a list of members recognized to speak. 

I'm not sure I understand this example.  Other than the fact a motion to lay a pending question on the table is almost always out of order because it's being misused http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#12 , was the person who moved the previous question actually assigned the floor by the chair?  If so it should be in order, at least under RONR since RONR doesn't recognize a procedure where there are a list of additional members recognized to speak. The chair recognizes members one at a time.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, livingfractal said:

An example is a motion to table, or a point of order that member didn’t receive recognition to move the previous question during debate when we have a list of members recognized to speak. 

A motion to lay on the table is technically in order after the Previous Question has been ordered but before voting has begun, but it should be noted that the proper use of a motion to Lay on the Table is to set the pending motion aside temporarily so that the assembly may take up another matter which requires immediate attention. It seems doubtful that the other matter is so urgent that it cannot await the completion of the vote. I wonder, therefore, if the motion to lay on the table is being misused (as it usually is). See FAQ #12 and FAQ #13 for more information.

As for the Point of Order, I am not certain whether this point is still timely after the chair has already taken the vote on the motion for the Previous Question. If the chair admits a motion for the Previous Question from a member who has not properly been recognized, a member should immediately raise the Point of Order regarding this fact.

3 hours ago, livingfractal said:

As for a majority being dilatory. We have constitutional duties, and certain personal interest groups have coordinated campaigns for election under false pretense to obstruct our duties. The only solution is, of course, increasing involvement and recourse through the judicial branch for egregious behavior  assuming they don’t use our power of appointment to stack the judiciary. But like you said, that’s politics and not parliamentary procedure  

I understand why you feel these actions are highly problematic (especially to the extent that they involve willful attempts at violating the rules in the organization’s governing documents), but “dilatory” really is not the right word for this.

”A motion is dilatory if it seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly as clearly indicated by the existing parliamentary situation.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 342)

More specifically, a dilatory motion is a motion which is otherwise in order, but is used with the clear intent of delaying business. Such tactics are generally used by the minority.

”As further examples, it is dilatory to obstruct business by appealing from a ruling of the chair on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, by demanding a division (29) on a vote even when there has been a full vote and the result is clear, by moving to lay on the table the matter for which a special meeting has been called, by constantly raising points of order and appealing from the chair's decision on them, or by moving to adjourn again and again when nothing has happened to justify renewal of such a motion. By use of such tactics, a minority of two or three members could bring business to a standstill.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 342)

There is no reason for the majority to use dilatory tactics, because the majority is in control of the assembly’s business, and therefore has no reason to unnecessarily delay its business with dilatory tactics. Additionally, when the majority does choose to delay business (such as by adopting a motion to postpone), it is expressed by a majority vote that it is the assembly’s will to delay the business in question, and therefore there is no obstruction of the assembly’s will.

Motions or tactics used by the majority may well be out of order, improper, or merely undesirable for other reasons, but they can’t really be “dilatory.”

Edited April 26, 2019 at 10:15 PM by Josh Martin

[livingfractal]

Dilatory probably is the wrong phrase to use. 

 

The point of order would be raised raised prior to the vote on the previous question. Our standing rules specify the creation of list of speakers for debate. 

 

They make up about 20 out of a body of 50, so they are in a bit flux when it comes to majority status. 

 

Im really just trying to ask a more general question, because they’ve stated “no motion is in order because we are in voting procedures” even when voting has not began. I can’t make the point of order, and by the time the presiding officer allows it is too late to raise a point of order on the issue. 

 

It goes something like this: 

 

Someone yells, “call the question”

Someone else tells “second”

speaker: There is a call to question, it is seconded and not debatable. 

Someone else: I seek recognition of the Speaker

Speaker: we are in voting procedures and all motions are out of order

 

During elections we spent an hour in “voting procedures”, because the ethics chair (they preside during elections at the first meeting of the session) was waiting for the academic advisor to tell them if a member who arrived late could vote during the run off election after sitting out the initial election. They wouldn’t even entertain listening to members make any motion despite all the previous ballots being tallied and the runoff ballots not having been collected. They just kept saying “no motions or leaving while we are in voting procedures.” I couldn’t even begin to say we should set this on the table and move onto other elections we know the member can vote on instead of locking ourselves in a room for an hour twiddling our thumbs. 

 

Mind you, I went through a lot of effort amending our standing laws just prior to this to get rid of some ridiculous clause calling for tabling a motion to move business to an unfavorable calendar exactly like a motion to postpone indefinitely. The wording for both motions was literally the same. And you really don’t want to hear about the “friendly amendments” section. We also can’t amend anything on the consent calendar, but there is no way specified to move something from the consent calendar to the general agenda without requesting so prior to the meeting. I spent a solid five minutes explaining how we had to suspend that rule, and then they were flabbergasted I moved to refer it back to Committee when the author decided to adopt her own amendment as a friendly amendment so my caucus and I could give the written notice to move it to the unfavorable calendar to be done with what is the most convoluted proceedings I’d ever seen. I even like the bill in spirit, but they wanted to rush a bill through that had the potential to remove all funding from entire branches of our student government a week before final exams, and only a week into our legislative session. It is honestly the weirdest thing I’ve ever seen, and I go to political party conventions. 

Edited April 27, 2019 at 03:33 AM by livingfractal

[Richard Brown]

Addressing only one point for now, the rule in RONR prohibiting interruptions and motions during voting applies only after voting is actually in progress, after the first vote is cast. It does not apply while preparing to vote. 

[Josh Martin]

13 hours ago, livingfractal said:

The point of order would be raised raised prior to the vote on the previous question.

Thank you for the clarification. In that event, the motion would be in order and the point would be timely.

One thing that may help...

“When a member notices a breach of order that may do harm if allowed to pass, he rises and, without waiting for recognition, immediately addresses the chair as follows: 
MEMBER A: I rise to a point of order. [Or, "Point of order!"]” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 253)

13 hours ago, livingfractal said:

Our standing rules specify the creation of list of speakers for debate. 

This is properly a special rule of order, not a standing rule, but in any event, it will be up to your organization to interpret its own rules.

13 hours ago, livingfractal said:

Im really just trying to ask a more general question, because they’ve stated “no motion is in order because we are in voting procedures” even when voting has not began. I can’t make the point of order, and by the time the presiding officer allows it is too late to raise a point of order on the issue. 

It seems the presiding officer could use some training in this regard. As noted above, this statement is not correct.

13 hours ago, livingfractal said:

Someone yells, “call the question”

Someone else tells “second”

speaker: There is a call to question, it is seconded and not debatable. 

 Someone else: I seek recognition of the Speaker

Speaker: we are in voting procedures and all motions are out of order

It is not correct that all motions are out of order until someone has actually voted. Until that time, in circumstances such as these, the chair should ask “For what purpose does the member rise?” This is because the purposes for which the floor may be granted at this time are limited, and the chair must ascertain if the member is seeking the floor for a proper purpose before granting it.

14 hours ago, livingfractal said:

During elections we spent an hour in “voting procedures”, because the ethics chair (they preside during elections at the first meeting of the session) was waiting for the academic advisor to tell them if a member who arrived late could vote during the run off election after sitting out the initial election. 

He can.

14 hours ago, livingfractal said:

They wouldn’t even entertain listening to members make any motion despite all the previous ballots being tallied and the runoff ballots not having been collected. They just kept saying “no motions or leaving while we are in voting procedures.”

As noted above, this is not correct.

14 hours ago, livingfractal said:

We also can’t amend anything on the consent calendar, but there is no way specified to move something from the consent calendar to the general agenda without requesting so prior to the meeting.

Do your rules actually specify this?

Finally, since it appears that the parliamentary problems your organization has are fairly extensive, it may behoove the organization to consider hiring a professional parliamentarian in your area to assist the organization in such aspects as providing parliamentary trainings, assisting in drafting amendments to your rules, and possibly serving as advisor to the chair at select meetings. The National Association of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians provide referrals.

[Joshua Katz]

16 hours ago, livingfractal said:

was waiting for the academic advisor to tell them if a member who arrived late could vote during the run off election after sitting out the initial election.

The presiding officer is always free to seek guidance on parliamentary matters. That said, it is unfortunately common in, for instance, HOAs, for bodies to be led around by their own employees, and let their employees take over. College organizations are in a somewhat different situation, since their advisors are not their employees. However, it is also distressingly common for college organizations to either take commands from non-member advisors, or to actively seek out such ways to give up their own power. So another question here is why the chair would wait an hour for parliamentary advice from an advisor - and, as I suspect, either the advisors actually have a lot of power, or the group is giving up its power to them for no reason. Something to investigate.