Motion to reconsider

[Guest Zev]

12 hours ago, Jeff Kelley said:

If an item  is voted on that required a 2/3 vote...

I am now worried that the nature of this motion may severely affect any answer. Can you wax a little bit about what kind of motion this was and the reason why it required a two-thirds vote?

[John Cummings]

24 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

I am now worried that the nature of this motion may severely affect any answer. Can you wax a little bit about what kind of motion this was and the reason why it required a two-thirds vote?

Trying not to state any specific details, but this was a vote on a multi-million dollar contract.  It is my understanding that financial issues of this nature require 2/3 vote, at least in our HOA.
Thanks

[Guest Zev]

2 hours ago, John Cummings said:

Trying not to state any specific details, but this was a vote on a multi-million dollar contract.  It is my understanding that financial issues of this nature require 2/3 vote, at least in our HOA.

For a second I imagined it might be related to a bylaw amendment or a continuing breach of some kind; apparently neither of these. I think it would be prudent to confirm this by referring to the bylaws and making sure. Regardless, it does not change the fact that the adoption of the motion is a done deal.

[John Cummings]

Thanks again for all the replies.  These replies show how important it is to have someone very well versed in Roberts Rules moderate the meeting.  We could have protested the motion to reconsider until we were blue in the face, but since the lawyer was also the moderator his definition of "prevail"  decided the issue.

[Rob Elsman]

Mr. Kapur makes me doubt the accuracy of my previous response. All of a sudden, I get the feeling I don't understand the original post.

[Dan Honemann]

We are told that:

"On the reconsideration vote, the motion passed by "1" vote, the "yes" vote prevailed.   The motion to reconsider was 2 hours after the initial vote and some folks had left the meeting, so the vote total was about 30 less."

It isn't at all clear whether this relates to the vote on the motion to reconsider or to the vote on the main motion after the motion to reconsider was adopted.

 

 

[John Cummings]

39 minutes ago, reelsman said:

Mr. Kapur makes me doubt the accuracy of my previous response. All of a sudden, I get the feeling I don't understand the original post.

Thanks,
Here is the definition of prevailing side from roberts rules glossary. In ordinary english, seems clear, but I am not a lawyer.

PREVAILING SIDE. The winning side which may be either the affirmative or the negative.

 

11 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

We are told that:

"On the reconsideration vote, the motion passed by "1" vote, the "yes" vote prevailed.   The motion to reconsider was 2 hours after the initial vote and some folks had left the meeting, so the vote total was about 30 less."

It isn't at all clear whether this relates to the vote on the motion to reconsider or to the vote on the main motion after the motion to reconsider was adopted.

 

 

The motion to reconsider was made approximately 2 hours after the initial vote.  The motion to reconsider was challenged as invalid as it came from the losing side, but that challenge was shot down by the lawyer/moderator. The moderator said, the losing side, was the prevailing side.  The vote on the reconsideration motion passed easily as it only required >50%.

The 2nd vote on the article after the reconsideration vote passed, was very close.  The 2nd vote passed by 1 single vote and required 2/3 majority to pass,

Sorry for the confusion. Hopefully, I didn't make it worse.

Edited September 24, 2019 at 01:07 PM by John Cummings

[Josh Martin]

44 minutes ago, John Cummings said:

Thanks,
Here is the definition of prevailing side from roberts rules glossary. In ordinary english, seems clear, but I am not a lawyer.

PREVAILING SIDE. The winning side which may be either the affirmative or the negative.

The motion to reconsider was made approximately 2 hours after the initial vote.  The motion to reconsider was challenged as invalid as it came from the losing side, but that challenge was shot down by the lawyer/moderator. The moderator said, the losing side, was the prevailing side.  The vote on the reconsideration motion passed easily as it only required >50%.

The 2nd vote on the article after the reconsideration vote passed, was very close.  The 2nd vote passed by 1 single vote and required 2/3 majority to pass,

Sorry for the confusion. Hopefully, I didn't make it worse.

While I agree with my colleagues that what happened was improper, I would note that a 2/3 vote is also sufficient to Suspend the Rules. Therefore, the rules could have been suspended in order to let a member on the losing side move to Reconsider.

The moral of the story is to stick around for the whole meeting when multi-million dollar contracts are involved. Alternately, a member could have moved to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes.

Edited September 24, 2019 at 01:49 PM by Josh Martin

[John Cummings]

Thanks Josh,  I agree, stay till the end.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

15 hours ago, John Cummings said:

It is causing lots of controversy. Apparently the HOA lawyer doesn't know roberts rules.

His interpretation was that the side that didn't prevail was actually the winning side when applying the reconsideration rule since they received > 50%+1.   It was a 2/3 vote requirement.

Several folks actually had roberts rules with them and challenged the lawyer, but the lawyer got it wrong.

I think one would have to try very hard to misinterpret the clear rule in RONR.  I suspect the lawyer didn't bother to consult the actual text.  Sadly, many lawyers presume that they know more than they actually do, when it comes to parliamentary procedure.  It's important to realize that a lawyer, parliamentarian, or individual member may offer opinions, but the presiding officer is the one who issues rulings.  Did the chair rule on this issue, or was the lawyer's pronouncement simply accepted? 

What should happen in cases like this is that the chair (after seeking input from other knowledgeable persons) rules on a matter, often responding to a Point of Order raised by a member.  If any two members dispute the correctness of the ruling (especially if they have Robert's Rules with them 🙂) they can move and second a motion to Appeal from the Decision of the Chair and if they get majority agreement, can overrule the chair's decision.

[Dan Honemann]

The lawyer was presiding.

[Gary Novosielski]

20 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The lawyer was presiding.

Okay, that does remove a step from the process. 🙄

[Joshua Katz]

17 hours ago, John Cummings said:

We could have protested the motion to reconsider until we were blue in the face, but since the lawyer was also the moderator his definition of "prevail"  decided the issue.

Don't protest until you're blue in the face, just move to appeal the ruling of the chair. It's much less damaging to your health.

[John Cummings]

6 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Don't protest until you're blue in the face, just move to appeal the ruling of the chair. It's much less damaging to your health.

Thanks,

The real issue is that only about 5 people in attendance really know Roberts Rules well and I was one of those that didn't know them well.  Won't make that mistake again, too important.

[Guest Zev]

Suppose for a second that the assembly adopted only one single motion by majority vote to Reconsider and forgot to adopt the second motion either to adopt or reject the contract motion that supposedly the bylaws requires a two-thirds vote for adoption.

Having declared the motion adopted by the presiding officer does anyone believe that as of this late date that the minority has a case that the motion lacked the necessary two-thirds vote for adoption and that therefore it constitutes a continuing breach?

[Joshua Katz]

14 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Having declared the motion adopted by the presiding officer does anyone believe that as of this late date that the minority has a case that the motion lacked the necessary two-thirds vote for adoption and that therefore it constitutes a continuing breach?

I sure don't.

[Guest Zev]

53 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

I sure don't.

I suspected that. I reviewed the items on page 251 and the footnote to the first items says

Quote

*Unless the conflict is with a rule in the nature of a rule of order as described on page 17, lines 22-25, in which case a point of order must be timely.

so I guess our friends in the minority that initially prevented the adoption of the motion and yet were skewered via subterfuge are out of luck. I wish we could do something for them. 

[Guest Zev]

One final curiosity question.

When you said

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 8:24 PM, John Cummings said:

On the reconsideration vote, the motion passed by "1" vote, the "yes" vote prevailed. 

Did the assembly vote only one single time on the motion to Reconsider and then imagined that nothing else needed to be done and the motion was now adopted by the same vote to Reconsider? I ask this question because standard procedure requires a majority vote for the motion to Reconsider and a second vote to either adopt or reject the reconsidered motion along with its original requirements to adopt it, which in this case was a two-thirds vote. Was this second vote actually taken? Not that it makes any difference at this late junction because these are procedural errors that must the appealed at the time they are made; now its too late.

[John Cummings]

8 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

One final curiosity question.

When you said

Did the assembly vote only one single time on the motion to Reconsider and then imagined that nothing else needed to be done and the motion was now adopted by the same vote to Reconsider? I ask this question because standard procedure requires a majority vote for the motion to Reconsider and a second vote to either adopt or reject the reconsidered motion along with its original requirements to adopt it, which in this case was a two-thirds vote. Was this second vote actually taken? Not that it makes any difference at this late junction because these are procedural errors that must the appealed at the time they are made; now its too late.

There were two votes.  The vote to reconsider which required >50% followed by the original item which required  > 2/3.

I'm not a lawyer, but what I find odd about this learning experience for me is that in most cases Robert's Rules  are very rigid and must be precise or you aren't even recognized, but in other cases, such as the burden of proof for reconsideration as to how one voted word of mouth is all the proof you need.  Those 2 things just to make sense to me, guess that is why I'm not a lawyer.

If I want to raise a point of order without saying point of order, then I'm denied, but all I need to do is say I voted one way and it is taken as gospel.  Many of you folks are lawyers, how many criminals said they didn't do it?  Is that proof?  

Thanks for all the responses
 

Edited September 26, 2019 at 01:37 PM by John Cummings

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, John Cummings said:

If I want to raise a point of order without saying point of order, then I'm denied, but all I need to do is say I voted one way and it is taken as gospel.  Many of you folks are lawyers, how many criminals said they didn't do it?  Is that proof?  

Perhaps the lesson to take away from this is that the chairman is being too technical in other instances, not that he is not being technical enough in this one. If a member raises what is clearly in the nature of a Point of Order, but does not use the exact words “Point of Order,” the chairman should not simply deny the member and move on. Instead, it seems to me that the chairman should assist the member in properly framing his statement as a Point of Order, or even to simply admit it as a Point of Order, even although the member did not use the exact words.

As for the latter comment, I am not a lawyer, but it would seem to me there is perhaps a slight difference between a person stating that they did not commit a crime in a court of law and a person stating that they voted one way or the other on a motion for the purposes of whether the member may move to Reconsider.

Edited September 26, 2019 at 04:49 PM by Josh Martin

[John Cummings]

Thanks Josh.

 

[Atul Kapur]

9 hours ago, John Cummings said:

followed by the original item which required  > 2/3.

Actually > or = 2/3. A vote of 10:5 adopts a motion requiring 2/3.

9 hours ago, John Cummings said:

all I need to do is say I voted one way and it is taken as gospel.

RONR is written for use by honourable people.

As for the Point of Order officiousness, I agree with Mr. Martin on how the chair should handle it.

[Joshua Katz]

I agree with Dr. Kapur's answer: RONR is not like a criminal trial, in this case because it is presumed that you will not lie about how you voted - just like it is presumed that people will vote their true beliefs on appeals, not what benefits their interests.

[John Cummings]

3 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Actually > or = 2/3. A vote of 10:5 adopts a motion requiring 2/3.

RONR is written for use by honourable people.

As for the Point of Order officiousness, I agree with Mr. Martin on how the chair should handle it.

Thanks,

Just wondering if an honorable person waits until the meeting is nearly over and many have left to make the motion to reconsider. It was clearing a smart move by someone that understood RONR, but honorable?  Not so sure.

[Atul Kapur]

On 9/24/2019 at 9:47 AM, Josh Martin said:

The moral of the story is to stick around for the whole meeting when multi-million dollar contracts are involved.

 

5 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

RONR is written for use by honourable people.

 

1 hour ago, John Cummings said:

Just wondering if an honorable person waits until the meeting is nearly over and many have left to make the motion to reconsider. It was clearing a smart move by someone that understood RONR, but honorable?  Not so sure.

I don't think the definition of honourable excludes being strategic.

As General Robert said in Parliamentary Law "The great
lesson for democracies to learn is ... for the minority, having failed to win a majority to their views, gracefully to submit and to recognize the action as that of the entire organization, and cheerfully to assist in carrying it out, until they can secure its repeal." (PL, p. 4 As Quoted in RONR, 11th ed., p. xlix.  Emphasis Added)

Edited September 27, 2019 at 04:35 AM by Atul Kapur