Motion passed by alternate voting when should not have.

[Deb E]

We have a land use board where an alternate was designated as a voting member for a portion of the meeting when a regular member had to recuse himself.  The minutes reflected the time he was designated as a voting member.  He continued to vote after the regular member came back into position as a member and when the alternate should have stepped back to the position of alternate.   The chair allowed this and a controversial motion passed by his vote.  It would have been 2 to 2 and thus failed.  I was not at the meeting but read it in the minutes.  Does this make the vote taken null and void? 

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

RONR 23:8 prescribes a remedy for any sustained points of order regarding inclusion of improper votes (bold is in the original):

“Remedy for Inclusion of Improper Votes. If the announced result of a vote included votes cast in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, such as votes cast by nonmembers or by absent members, or multiple votes improperly cast by a single member, a point of order can be raised so long as the decision arrived at as a result of the vote has continuing force and effect. If there is any possibility that the vote(s) would have affected the outcome, the results of the vote must be declared invalid if the point of order is sustained.”

Presuming your rules on members and their alternates are as you describe above, that the alternate can fill in while the member is gone, but not after he returns, this passage applies.  The alternate continuing to vote after the member returned means he did not have the rights of a member at the time of the vote, thus was a nonmember.  At the next meeting, a board member should raise a point of order about the results of those votes in which the alternate's improperly counted vote affected the result.

 

[Guest Zev]

I would suggest for member Deb E to be at the ready with a motion to Appeal the chair's ruling that the motion is not well taken. A presiding officer should know by heart who has the right to vote and who does not. His actions in this case is highly suspicious. My instinct raises a red flag but it could be an innocent mistake.

[Deb E]

Thank you for your posts.  I will bring this up when we meet again as a board. Thanks.