Chair Misstates a Motion

[DoctorLove]

What happens when a chair misstates the motion on the floor and no one catches it?

In our city council meeting, a motion was made and seconded. The chair restated the motion incorrectly. There was debate. The chair called for a vote on the motion the way he stated it. The motion passed. Now a member of the council, who voted against the motion, is raising a stink about the semantics. Even though the motion was misstated, does the fact that we voted on it as he stated mean the motion carried? Does this make sense?

[J. J.]

The motion adopted is the one put to a vote (4:34).

[Atul Kapur]

More specifically,  "...the exact wording the chair
uses in putting the question is definitive, and the wording in the
minutes must be the same."

So the time to correct this is when the chair puts the motion to a vote and that must be done before anyone votes: "If the chair’s wording of the question is erroneous, a point of order may be made until any member has actually voted." [Emphasis added]

Edited April 19, 2023 at 03:05 AM by Atul Kapur
Typos

[DoctorLove]

So, the one the chair restated incorrectly? Thanks!

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/18/2023 at 10:22 PM, DoctorLove said:

What happens when a chair misstates the motion on the floor and no one catches it?

In our city council meeting, a motion was made and seconded. The chair restated the motion incorrectly. There was debate. The chair called for a vote on the motion the way he stated it. The motion passed. Now a member of the council, who voted against the motion, is raising a stink about the semantics. Even though the motion was misstated, does the fact that we voted on it as he stated mean the motion carried? Does this make sense?

Whatever the chair stated at the time the vote was taken is what was voted on. Whether it carried or not depends on how many votes it got.  You say it passed, so it apparently carried.

It makes sense, but it's not ideal.  The chair should state the motions correctly, and the members should pay attention to make sure the chair isn't changing what the motions say.

Edited to add:
But just to be clear, in the situation you describe, the motion was adopted in the form stated by the chair when putting the question to a vote.

Edited April 19, 2023 at 05:51 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Rob Elsman]

The assembly apparently looked favorably on the misstated motion. Maybe it liked it more than it would have liked the motion that was originally made. The error is water under the bridge. 

[DoctorLove]

On 4/19/2023 at 12:11 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Whatever the chair stated at the time the vote was taken is what was voted on. Whether it carried or not depends on how many votes it got.  You say it passed, so it apparently carried.

It makes sense, but it's not ideal.  The chair should state the motions correctly, and the members should pay attention to make sure the chair isn't changing what the motions say.

Edited to add:
But just to be clear, in the situation you describe, the motion was adopted in the form stated by the chair when putting the question to a vote.

I think the chair thought he was restating it properly, and the rest of us obviously didn't catch it. The difference was one word. But, the fellow that lost the vote is trying to use this as a way to obstruct the process.... I just want to make sure I have my ducks in a row. Thanks

[Richard Brown]

@DoctorLove, what was the nature of the motion?  Was it perhaps an ordinance or resolution?  Was it submitted in writing?  Was there a first reading of this motion at the previous meeting?  Or was this a motion, not submitted in writing previously, that was extemporaneously made from the floor by a member, such as a motion to wish the clerk or the Mayor a happy birthday or to commend the police chief for his department cathing catching the graffiti artist who was defacing City Hall? 

If it was the latter, I agree with my colleagues.  But if this was an ordinance that is required to be submitted in writing and/or read for first reading at the previous meeting, then I believe the text of the written ordinance controls.  That is actually a legal question, not a parliamentary one.

Edited April 20, 2023 at 05:59 AM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/19/2023 at 11:34 PM, Richard Brown said:

his department cathing the graffiti artist

Ouch.

[Richard Brown]

On 4/19/2023 at 11:24 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Ouch.

LOL!!!  I fixed it. Thanks!