Improper Motion

[Guest John S]

A main motion has been adopted by a margin of 2 votes.  At the same meeting Member X moves the motion to reconsider the vote the main motion.  This motion to reconsider the vote is adopted by 1 vote.  When considering the main motion again, the main motion is this time defeated by 1 vote.  About an hour later Member Y brings to the attention of the assembly, through a point of order, that Member X did not vote on the prevailing side and therefore could not make the motion to Reconsider the Vote.  The Presiding Officer turns to you.  As procedural advisor to the Presiding Officer how do you advise to rule on the point of order?

[Joshua Katz]

The point of order is not well taken since it not timely. 

[Rob Elsman]

Since none of the five exceptions given in RONR (12th ed.) 23:6 applies, the general rule in 23:5 is the controlling rule; therefore, the Point of Order is not in order if business has been transacted through the intervening hour.

[Guest John S]

Thank you Joshua. Wouldn't the action be deemed null and void since Member X did not vote on the prevailing side when making the motion to Reconsider the Vote?

[Atul Kapur]

No. There is a requirement that the point of order has to be raised in a timely fashion. In this case, that's before anyone debates the motion to Reconsider.

After that, it's too late to raise that point of order. Same as if the motion wasn't seconded before debate started.

Edited October 1, 2020 at 06:47 PM by Atul Kapur

[George Mervosh]

Remind the presiding officer from now on: "If the maker of the motion to Reconsider fails to state which side he voted on, the chair, before making any other response, directs the member to do so: 
CHAIR: The member moving the reconsideration must state how he voted on the resolution ["motion," "amendment," etc.]."  

(This quote is from the 11th edition, but I'm doubting it changed in the 12th)

Edited October 1, 2020 at 06:52 PM by George Mervosh

[Richard Brown]

I was in the process of making a post explaining why the Point of Order objecting to the fact that the member who moved to reconsider did not vote on the prevailing side was out of order at the time it was made, but I see that Dr. Kapur has properly addressed the issue. I concur with Dr. Kapur, Mr. Katz, and Mr. Elsman. 

Edited to add: I also agree with Mr. Mervosh who made his post as I was making mine.

Edited October 1, 2020 at 06:56 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Joshua Katz]

11 minutes ago, Guest John S said:

Thank you Joshua. Wouldn't the action be deemed null and void since Member X did not vote on the prevailing side when making the motion to Reconsider the Vote?

There is no general rule that any action violating the rules is deemed null and void. The problem is the deeming itself. The deeming only happens when a valid point of order is raised. In this case, no valid point of order has been raised, because it was raised when not timely.

If you want to look at it from another perspective: A point of order is generally raised when someone's rights are being violated, or a rule is being broken, right now. A point of order regarding a violation of the bylaws, for instance, is timely so long as the motion that violated the bylaws is in effect, because the violation of the bylaws is still happening. Is there a rule here that is still being violated? No, the rule regards the making of a motion, and currently, no motion is being made, or even considered.

 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

5 hours ago, Guest John S said:

Thank you Joshua. Wouldn't the action be deemed null and void since Member X did not vote on the prevailing side when making the motion to Reconsider the Vote?

It might have been, had a timely Point of Order been raised at the time the motion to Reconsider was made.  But as it wasn't, and as no continuing breach now exists, it's too late to remedy the error.