Taking another vote after the initial vote failed

[Guest Scott Brewer]

To elect a new pastor requires a 90% majority vote of members present.

If the vote came in at 88%, could there be another motion to "let the record reflect a 90+% affirmation of the candidate"?

Or, could someone move that the original vote be retaken?

[Joshua Katz]

It seems to me that a motion to falsify the minutes is out of order, particularly where it's being done to take away the rights of a minority.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/9/2023 at 8:30 PM, Guest Scott Brewer said:

To elect a new pastor requires a 90% majority vote of members present.

If the vote came in at 88%, could there be another motion to "let the record reflect a 90+% affirmation of the candidate"?

Or, could someone move that the original vote be retaken?

No, it would not be in order have the record reflect something that did not happen.

But even if it were passed, what the minutes would actually reflect is an election that did not pass, followed by a motion to doctor the minutes.  And a vote to make the vote 90% would take a 90% vote to pass, so if that level of approval existed, the election would have passed in the first place.

What could be done, for a very limited time, is someone who voted No could move to Reconsider (§37) the vote, which needs a second and a majority vote, and if adopted would bring the question of electing the new pastor back before the assembly.  However, it would still take 90% to elect.

Reconsider can only be moved during that same session, so if the meeting adjourns without it, that's the end of the story.

 

 

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/9/2023 at 8:30 PM, Guest Scott Brewer said:

If the vote came in at 88%, could there be another motion to "let the record reflect a 90+% affirmation of the candidate"?

I believe that, as also said above, this would run counter to both Good Books that should be important to this church meeting.

On 3/9/2023 at 8:30 PM, Guest Scott Brewer said:

Or, could someone move that the original vote be retaken?

This is called the motion to Reconsider, as described above. An alternative is to bring this motion back at a future meeting, perhaps a special meeting.

[J. J.]

On 3/9/2023 at 11:01 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I believe that, as also said above, this would run counter to both Good Books that should be important to this church meeting.

This is called the motion to Reconsider, as described above. An alternative is to bring this motion back at a future meeting, perhaps a special meeting.

Agreeing that Reconsider is in order, I would note that the rules may be suspend in one of those Good Books.

The rule protects a minority of 10%, so 90% or more could suspend the rule (25:2 7).  That might sound redundant, but in some churches, there is a desire to give the appearance of great harmony.  I know of one denomination where it is traditional to "make the vote on the call of the pastor unanimous," which requires a unanimous vote.  I think it would be in order "to suspend the rules and call _____ as pastor,"  which would require at least a 90% affirmative vote.

[Josh Martin]

On 3/9/2023 at 5:30 PM, Guest Scott Brewer said:

To elect a new pastor requires a 90% majority vote of members present.

If the vote came in at 88%, could there be another motion to "let the record reflect a 90+% affirmation of the candidate"?

I would first suggest the motion should be slightly reworded. As written, the motion seems to suggest the minutes should be falsified to reflect that a 90% vote was received. I do not think that such a motion is in order, and there may also be legal problems with maintaining fraudulent minutes.

But yes, I believe that a motion to elect the pastor, as if a 90% vote had been received, would be in order, however, this motion will itself require a 90% vote. (This seems comparable to a motion "to make the vote unanimous," which would require a unanimous vote. This situation is slightly different - normally, such a motion involves a case where a person was elected, but it is desired to show unity.)

"In any case, no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule." RONR (12th ed.) 25:2(7)

Furthermore, in the event the original vote was taken by ballot (which may well be the case for an election), this vote would also need to be taken by ballot.

"When a vote is to be taken, or has been taken, by ballot, whether or not the bylaws require that form of voting, no action is in order that would force the disclosure of a member's vote or views on the matter. Applications of this rule arise with regard to voting on motions to Postpone Indefinitely (30:5) and the reconsideration of motions that have been previously voted on by ballot (30:7). Likewise, a motion to make unanimous a ballot vote that was not unanimous must itself be voted on by ballot; even a single negative vote in such a case defeats the motion." RONR (12th ed.) 45:21

If such a motion is made and adopted, the results of the original vote should still reflect an 88% vote, but the minutes would also reflect the adoption of the second motion.

It might be easier to just vote again.

On 3/9/2023 at 5:30 PM, Guest Scott Brewer said:

Or, could someone move that the original vote be retaken?

It depends somewhat on how these pastor elections normally work. If they are comparable to an election of officers, then a second vote must be taken.

On the other hand, if it is comparable to a main motion, then it's not quite as simple, but yes, the vote could be retaken. The proper method would be for a member who voted on the prevailing side (which in this case, is the members who voted against the original motion) to move to Reconsider the vote.

Edited March 10, 2023 at 02:37 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Scott Brewer]

Thanks everyone for the input. Very helpful.