Call for Vote and who can say "Point of Order"

[David T.]

Hello all,

I was at a special City Council meeting last night in reference to a resolution that they were in the process of adopting.

Please Note: the transcription software that they used [I copied and pasted here] states, "* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Speech-to-Text". I started to correct some of the words but there was so much wrong that I stopped adding them. But if it takes you to the actual video recording you will understand what I mean. I added timestamps to help find the correct location of the copied and pasted items.

(timestamp [00:00:50]  IS THERE A MOTION PLEASE? MR. CAMPBELL MOTION TO ADOPT FOR A SECOND.

MR. WEBB, I'LL HAVE A SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION

A discussion then ensued. 

One of the council members said, timestamp [00:59:53] "SO I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS, ON THIS MOTION". Later in the transcript another council member said, timestamp [01:01:33] "IT ALL SECOND CALL THE VOTE" . The IT ALL portion is actually "And I'll".

However, when the vote proceeded, it wasn't on the calling of the vote but adoption of the resolution.

Anyway, moving forward, I raised my hand from the chamber floor and said Mr. Mayor, (not "GUYS" again transcription software got it wrong and BOAT should also be VOTE) "

timestamp [01:021:12] GUYS DID THIS HOLD FOR THE BOAT AND DIDN'T ACTUALLY ON THE CALL FOR THE BOAT.

CAUSE YOU HAD SOMEONE MAKE A MOTION AND THEN MR. CAMPBELL SECONDED CALL FOR THE BOAT.

AND YOU HAVE TO APPROVE THAT AT FIRST LEGALLY, TO BE ABLE TO GO GET TO THAT NOTE FOR THE RESOLUTION.

I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT, BUT IF YOU WANT TO LEAVE, 

IT SHOULD COME FROM A MEMBER OF THE BODY AND NOT FROM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.

AND SECONDLY, UM, I TOOK THE, UH, THE CALL FOR THE VOTE IS A STATEMENT THAT THEY WERE ENCOURAGING ABOUT NOT AN ACTUAL MOTION TO, UH, CALL THE CAUSE EMOTION.

AND THE SECOND HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE EMOTIONAL SECOND ON THE FLOOR RATHER THAN BEFORE WE HAD THE DISCUSSION 

AND THE APPROPRIATE MOTION.

IF IT WAS TO BE A FORMAL MOTION TO FORCE, THE VOTE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO CALL THEM QUESTION AND THAT WAS NOT DONE.

SO I, I TOOK, UH, MR. CAMPBELL AND MRS. BURGESS AND A STATEMENT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VOTE IS JUST THAT A STATEMENT NOW.

SO I THINK PROCEDURALLY 

ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER WERE, WERE OKAY.

YUP.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

In the Rules of Council document: Section IV.  Motions  Part 2, Item f says - "To call the previous question and request that discussion end and that the motion being considered be voted on (requires two thirds vote)."

With that being said:

1. Would the statement made "SO I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS, ON THIS MOTION" be considered and interpreted as a "Call for the question?" with the 2nd?

2. If yes, would the "Call for a vote" need to be voted on 1st before moving on to the main motion?

     a. if yes, then did/do I have a right of "Point of Order" to the Mayor with being in the council chambers where the meeting was being held?

3. If I do not have that right of "Point of Order" as a citizen and taxpayer, then how is the "Call for a vote" and the original motion perceived if yes to "Call for a vote" but not voted on and they voted directly on the main motion?

Sorry so lengthy; but making sure all the facts are presented.

Thank you,

David 

 

[Josh Martin]

36 minutes ago, David T. said:

1. Would the statement made "SO I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS, ON THIS MOTION" be considered and interpreted as a "Call for the question?" with the 2nd?

Yes, I think so.

36 minutes ago, David T. said:

2. If yes, would the "Call for a vote" need to be voted on 1st before moving on to the main motion?

Yes. Alternately, the chair could have requested unanimous consent.

36 minutes ago, David T. said:

     a. if yes, then did/do I have a right of "Point of Order" to the Mayor with being in the council chambers where the meeting was being held?

No. Only a member can raise a Point of Order.

36 minutes ago, David T. said:

3. If I do not have that right of "Point of Order" as a citizen and taxpayer, then how is the "Call for a vote" and the original motion perceived if yes to "Call for a vote" but not voted on and they voted directly on the main motion?

I'm not sure I fully understand this question.

It appears that what happened is that the chair (improperly) proceeded to end debate and take an immediate vote on the main motion based upon the demand of a single member, rather than being ordered by a 2/3 vote. No timely Point of Order was raised, however, so the results stand.

Edited April 3, 2021 at 12:06 AM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

I know it sounds odd, but the proper form for the motion to immediately shut off debate is, "I move the Previous Question."

The motion does, indeed, require a second.

The motion requires a two-thirds vote for adoption.  The effect of this vote has nothing to do with the adoption or rejection of the motion to which the Previous Question has been applied.  It merely determines whether or not debate has ended.

[David T.]

7 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Yes, I think so.

Yes. Alternately, the chair could have requested unanimous consent.

No. Only a member can raise a Point of Order.

I'm not sure I fully understand this question.

It appears that what happened is that the chair (improperly) proceeded to end debate and take an immediate vote on the main motion based upon the demand of a single member, rather than being ordered by a 2/3 vote. No timely Point of Order was raised, however, so the results stand.

Hi Josh,

Thank you for your reply.

With question 3. If I do not have that right of "Point of Order" as a citizen and taxpayer, then how is the "Call for a vote" and the original motion perceived if yes to "Call for a vote" but not voted on and they voted directly on the main motion?

In other words, if the council member said, "SO I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS, ON THIS MOTION  and there was a 2nd, don't they have to vote on that motion 1st before they can move on to vote on the main motion? And if they don't vote on the "CALL FOR A VOTE" motion but go straight to voting on the main motion, is the vote on the main motion valid and/or legal since they never voted on the "CALL FOR A VOTE" motion which I would consider this as an unresolved motion that you can't have before moving to the main motion. Does that make sense?

But it also begs the question then, if it is not a valid or legal vote, then how do they learn that it is not a legal vote and does that make the resolution invalid even with the vote passing on the main motion?

Thank you,

David 

[Dan Honemann]

28 minutes ago, David T. said:

In other words, if the council member said, "SO I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS, ON THIS MOTION  and there was a 2nd, don't they have to vote on that motion 1st before they can move on to vote on the main motion? And if they don't vote on the "CALL FOR A VOTE" motion but go straight to voting on the main motion, is the vote on the main motion valid and/or legal since they never voted on the "CALL FOR A VOTE" motion which I would consider this as an unresolved motion that you can't have before moving to the main motion. Does that make sense?

A vote should have been taken on the "call for a vote", but the fact that this was not done does not invalidate the vote which was taken on the main motion. 

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, David T. said:

In other words, if the council member said, "SO I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS, ON THIS MOTION  and there was a 2nd, don't they have to vote on that motion 1st before they can move on to vote on the main motion?

Yes.

3 hours ago, David T. said:

And if they don't vote on the "CALL FOR A VOTE" motion but go straight to voting on the main motion, is the vote on the main motion valid and/or legal since they never voted on the "CALL FOR A VOTE" motion which I would consider this as an unresolved motion that you can't have before moving to the main motion. Does that make sense?

Yes, the vote on the main motion is valid.

As I already said, what appears to have happened is that the chair (improperly) proceeded to end debate and take an immediate vote on the main motion based upon the demand of a single member, rather than being ordered by a 2/3 vote. No timely Point of Order was raised, however, so the results stand.

A Point of Order must generally be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs. Otherwise, it is too late.

3 hours ago, David T. said:

But it also begs the question then, if it is not a valid or legal vote, then how do they learn that it is not a legal vote and does that make the resolution invalid even with the vote passing on the main motion?

It is a valid vote.

[Guest Puzzling]

Under RONR non member of a meeting  have no rights at all (this even applies to ordinary members at a board meeting and invited guests, only boardmembers have rights there)

The meeting may allow non members to be present or even to make motions but they are not rights, and can be taken away by the meeting or the chair.

Some (most?) organisations are bound by other laws, bylaws and rules of order  than just Roberts rules, most public organizations are bound by sunshine laws and other laws that give none members some rights to be present, read the minutes and so on (but never a right to vote)

But under Roberts rules of order you will not find rights of non members .

 

 

[Rob Elsman]

In my region of the country, "call the question" (usually by just hollering it out while the member is seated and without being recognized) is a terrible abuse by one member to force a cessation of debate on the assembly without a vote.  Worse still, the presiding officer often abuses his authority by doing this when he gets sick of the debate or feels the debate is "going the wrong way", so to speak, to his own judgment on the question.  I cannot think of even one other single malpractice that gives parliamentary law a black eye like this one does.

[Rob Elsman]

One thing caught my eye about the original post.  If I'm reading it correctly, the presiding officer failed to state the question before putting it to a vote.  This is a common mistake by inexperienced or improperly trained presiding officers.  Had this one stated the question, it would have become immediately apparent that there was confusion about what was being voted on and other members could have raised a Point of Order that the main motion was being put to a vote without a vote having been taken on the separate question whether to end debate.

The lesson here is a good one.  Stating the question is one of the six basic steps for handling motions in general.  In very small boards it may sometimes be safe to omit it, but, as we see here, even in smaller assemblies, it is very easy for confusion to occur when the question is put without having been stated.  Better safe than sorry, I say.  Even in smaller assemblies, it is better to take the time to state the question than to suffer the consequences of not having done so after the vote on "whatever" has been taken.

[David T.]

Thank you all for your comments. This has really helped me to understand that while I shouldn't have called out "Point of Order", I was correct that the chair and clerk of council were wrong in the handling of the vote; even though it would not invalidate the main motion vote that happened.

Thank you,

David