Postponing a vote.

[Guest Tim Johnstone]

We have a 19 person board and four directors can call a special meeting (as can officers).  A special meeting is called by six disgruntled board members and ten members attend the special meeting (a quorum).  During the meeting, a controversial motion is made and seconded.  The chair knows that the motion is likely to be passed with six votes but that the full board likely would not pass it (the topic has come up before), so requests a motion to postpone.  That motion is made and seconded but fails to receive a majority in the ensuing vote. _Does the chair have any other recourse for postponing, or must they call for a vote at that meeting (following discussion)?  Thank you.

[Gary Novosielski]

Unless the chair has some reason to rule the motion out of order, which does not appear to be the case from your description,  No.  In fact it could be argued that by "requesting" a motion to postpone, he was effectively entering into debate, for which he should first have relinquished the chair.

[J. J.]

If adopted, a member who ultimately opposes the motion could move to reconsider and enter on the minutes (37:46-37:52). 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/14/2023 at 1:20 PM, J. J. said:

If adopted, a member who ultimately opposes the motion could move to reconsider and enter on the minutes (37:46-37:52). 

If the motion is adopted, only a member who voted for it (the prevailing side) could move to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes.

[J. J.]

On 1/14/2023 at 1:26 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If the motion is adopted, only a member who voted for it (the prevailing side) could move to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes.

That is why I used the term "ultimately opposes" the motion. 

 

Edited January 14, 2023 at 06:31 PM by J. J.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/14/2023 at 1:31 PM, J. J. said:

That is why I used the term "ultimately opposes" the motion. 

Ah yes.  In the double-secret X-12 edition of RONR it says:

37:37      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 what his ultimate position (and penultimate position if any), will be in the event that the motion is reconsidered, and how he voted proximately on the actual resolution.

[Josh Martin]

On 1/14/2023 at 3:11 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Ah yes.  In the double-secret X-12 edition of RONR it says:

37:37      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 what his ultimate position (and penultimate position if any), will be in the event that the motion is reconsidered, and how he voted proximately on the actual resolution.

I believe what J.J. is getting at is that a member who is, in actuality, opposed to the motion would vote in favor of the motion for purposes of being eligible to make the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes - just as RONR suggests.

"To illustrate the use of this form of the motion, suppose that at a long meeting of a county historical society, many members have left, unknowingly leaving a quorum composed mainly of a small group determined to commit the society to certain action that a few of those present believe would be opposed by most of the membership. A member in opposition can prevent the vote on such action from becoming final by moving “to reconsider and enter on the minutes the vote on…” To be in a position to do this, such a member—detecting the hopelessness of preventing an affirmative result on the vote—should vote in the affirmative himself. If the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes is seconded, all action required by the vote proposed to be reconsidered is suspended, and there is time to notify absent members of the proposed action." RONR (12th ed.) 37:49.

Edited January 14, 2023 at 09:30 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/14/2023 at 4:29 PM, Josh Martin said:

I believe what J.J. is getting at is that a member who is, in actuality, opposed to the motion would vote in favor of the motion for purposes of being eligible to make the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes - just as RONR suggests.

"To illustrate the use of this form of the motion, suppose that at a long meeting of a county historical society, many members have left, unknowingly leaving a quorum composed mainly of a small group determined to commit the society to certain action that a few of those present believe would be opposed by most of the membership. A member in opposition can prevent the vote on such action from becoming final by moving “to reconsider and enter on the minutes the vote on…” To be in a position to do this, such a member—detecting the hopelessness of preventing an affirmative result on the vote—should vote in the affirmative himself. If the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes is seconded, all action required by the vote proposed to be reconsidered is suspended, and there is time to notify absent members of the proposed action." RONR (12th ed.) 37:49.

Yəthink? 😏

I actually saw this in the US Senate once, on some razor-thin vote.  McConnel was majority leader at the time, and they were voting on some bill he was opposed to.  When he presumably "detected the hopelessness" of his position, and voting last, he voted in the affirmative.  At first I thought I heard him wrong.

The presiding officer announced that the question was adopted and started to say "the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table."  McConnel objected and promptly moved to reconsider.  I forget what ultimately happened.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Voting yes to protect against an unrepresentative majority from deciding in order to effectuate reconsider and enter on the minutes is perfectly acceptable.

Edited January 15, 2023 at 01:47 AM by Caryn Ann Harlos

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/14/2023 at 8:47 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Voting yes to protect against an unrepresentative majority from deciding in order to effectuate reconsider and enter on the minutes is perfectly acceptable.

I don't think anyone asserted anything to the contrary.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/14/2023 at 8:36 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I don't think anyone asserted anything to the contrary.

Could easily be my misunderstanding.  It seemed like it was.

[puzzling]

puzzling with this all, can the motion to reconsider and enter in the minutes not be opposed by the (present ) majority (really) in favour of the motion?

or can this only be done by a 2/3 vote?

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/15/2023 at 11:49 AM, puzzling said:

puzzling with this all, can the motion to reconsider and enter in the minutes not be opposed by the (present ) majority (really) in favour of the motion?

 

That would defeat the whole purpose of the motion, to wit:

 

"It's purpose is to prevent a temporary majority from taking advantage of an unrepresentative attendance at a meeting to vote an action that is opposed by a majority of a society's or convention's membership.... Thus, with a view to obtaining a more representative attendance, it ensure reconsideration of a question on a different day from the one on which the question was put to vote."  37:46

[J. J.]

On 1/15/2023 at 1:49 PM, puzzling said:

puzzling with this all, can the motion to reconsider and enter in the minutes not be opposed by the (present ) majority (really) in favour of the motion?

or can this only be done by a 2/3 vote?

It cannot be brought up at the meeting.

While it is not clear, the intent of reconsider and enter in the minutes is to protect absentee rights; I would probably not permit the rules be suspended to permit the motion to be reconsidered on the same day, if there were absentees. 

[Josh Martin]

On 1/15/2023 at 12:49 PM, puzzling said:

puzzling with this all, can the motion to reconsider and enter in the minutes not be opposed by the (present ) majority (really) in favour of the motion?

or can this only be done by a 2/3 vote?

No, this cannot be done, by any vote. When the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes is made, the motion is not taken up and voted on at that time. Rather, the motion cannot be taken up until a future meeting.

"Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes is a special form of the motion to Reconsider that has a different object from the regular motion. Its purpose is to prevent a temporary majority from taking advantage of an unrepresentative attendance at a meeting to vote an action that is opposed by a majority of a society's or a convention's membership. The effect of this form of the motion arises from the fact that when it is moved—on the same day that the vote to be reconsidered was taken—it cannot be called up until another day, even if another meeting is held on the same day. Thus, with a view to obtaining a more representative attendance, it ensures reconsideration of a question on a different day from the one on which the question was put to vote. The name of this form does not imply that the regular motion to Reconsider is not also recorded in the minutes." RONR (12th ed.) 37:46

The motion exists for a situation exactly like the OP describes - when the members present are not representative of the full assembly.

"The chair knows that the motion is likely to be passed with six votes but that the full board likely would not pass it"

On 1/15/2023 at 1:20 PM, J. J. said:

While it is not clear, the intent of reconsider and enter in the minutes is to protect absentee rights; I would probably not permit the rules be suspended to permit the motion to be reconsidered on the same day, if there were absentees. 

I agree.

Edited January 15, 2023 at 07:23 PM by Josh Martin

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/15/2023 at 12:20 PM, J. J. said:

It cannot be brought up at the meeting.

While it is not clear, the intent of reconsider and enter in the minutes is to protect absentee rights; I would probably not permit the rules be suspended to permit the motion to be reconsidered on the same day, if there were absentees. 

How is it not clear?

[J. J.]

On 1/15/2023 at 2:33 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

How is it not clear?

It does not specifically create notice nor refer to it as an absentee right.   It is also not an ongoing right possessed by members, even absent ones.  An adjourned meeting could be called and any absentees would not be required to be sent notice of that meeting. 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/15/2023 at 12:39 PM, J. J. said:

It does not specifically create notice nor refer to it as an absentee right.   It is also not an ongoing right possessed by members, even absent ones.  An adjourned meeting could be called and any absentees would not be required to be sent notice of that meeting. 

Okay, but it certainly seems like it is pretty clearly the intent without it being spelled out, that seems to be a deficiency in the holy book.

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/14/2023 at 12:57 PM, Guest Tim Johnstone said:

We have a 19 person board and four directors can call a special meeting (as can officers).  A special meeting is called by six disgruntled board members and ten members attend the special meeting (a quorum).  During the meeting, a controversial motion is made and seconded. 

The only business that can be conducted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting.  So now, what right of absentees is being violated here?

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/15/2023 at 2:47 PM, Dan Honemann said:

The only business that can be conducted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting.  So now, what right of absentees is being violated here?

Good point.

[J. J.]

On 1/15/2023 at 4:47 PM, Dan Honemann said:

The only business that can be conducted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting.  So now, what right of absentees is being violated here?

They, in theory, could know that the people at the meeting would not be the final word, one way or the other.  They could know that, in the future, if someone at the meeting  feels the result could be changed with better attendance, they would get another bite at the apple, as it where.  Now, does that expectation constitute an absentee right?    Maybe. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/15/2023 at 5:34 PM, J. J. said:

They, in theory, could know that the people at the meeting would not be the final word, one way or the other.  They could know that, in the future, if someone at the meeting  feels the result could be changed with better attendance, they would get another bite at the apple, as it where.  Now, does that expectation constitute an absentee right?    Maybe. 

Of course not.

[J. J.]

On 1/15/2023 at 5:37 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Of course not.

I would not immediately dismiss that possibility.  Certainly not as a practical matter.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/15/2023 at 3:41 PM, J. J. said:

I would not immediately dismiss that possibility.  Certainly not as a practical matter.

I would not as a practical matter either, but as a strict black letter matter, I think he's right.  But you know me, I find practical matters far more important.  Theory is great.  Most members don't care about theory.

[J. J.]

On 1/15/2023 at 5:46 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I would not as a practical matter either, but as a strict black letter matter, I think he's right.  But you know me, I find practical matters far more important.  Theory is great.  Most members don't care about theory.

It depends.  The members, for a number of reasons, may have decided that, if the motion is adopted (or defeated) they have the option of going to the next meeting and voting.  They are willing to let several members effectively at as a watchdog and only act if that watchdog barks.

The practical matter is that if the rules are suspended to prohibit reconsider and enter, the members, at the next meeting could raise a point of order that this was a violation of absentee rights and demand the motion be reconsidered.  I am not sure how I would rule, but an appeal would be in order.