challenge Challenge a vote

[Guest Jessica]

Our newly established church recently had a vote to join a church conference or remain independent. Vote went 17 total- 7 to join/ 8 independent and 2 other. It was announced that the decision had been made to be independent and we would start working toward government and bylaws next. Motion was made and 2nd. Almost a week later we have someone, who didn’t agree with the out come of the vote, questioning the fact that we didn’t have a majority, it was just popular vote. What should be done next to be ethically and morally correct. 

[Atul Kapur]

Challenges to the declared result of a vote, under RONR, must be made immediately with only a couple of exceptions that would allow for a delayed challenge. None of those exceptions appear to apply here, so it is too late to challenge the vote result.

A member can move to rescind the decision or amend it. Different vote requirements apply to those motions. See §35 for details.

Edited June 30, 2023 at 01:40 PM by Atul Kapur

[J. J.]

On 6/30/2023 at 8:12 AM, Guest Jessica said:

Our newly established church recently had a vote to join a church conference or remain independent. Vote went 17 total- 7 to join/ 8 independent and 2 other. It was announced that the decision had been made to be independent and we would start working toward government and bylaws next. Motion was made and 2nd. Almost a week later we have someone, who didn’t agree with the out come of the vote, questioning the fact that we didn’t have a majority, it was just popular vote. What should be done next to be ethically and morally correct. 

If the question was to join a conference and the vote was 7 yes and 8 no, the motion was lost.  What where the two other votes? 

[Josh Martin]

On 6/30/2023 at 7:12 AM, Guest Jessica said:

Our newly established church recently had a vote to join a church conference or remain independent. Vote went 17 total- 7 to join/ 8 independent and 2 other. It was announced that the decision had been made to be independent and we would start working toward government and bylaws next. Motion was made and 2nd. Almost a week later we have someone, who didn’t agree with the out come of the vote, questioning the fact that we didn’t have a majority, it was just popular vote.

That's not how votes work. You vote "yes" or "no" on the motion to join the church conference. If there are more votes in the affirmative than in the negative, there is a majority and the motion is adopted. (Although it's conceivable the church's rules require more than a majority in this instance.) If there is not a majority in the affirmative, the motion is defeated. There is no option for "Other." (There are other procedures for that, such as moving to amend the main motion, or making a different motion after the main motion is defeated.) Members can abstain, in which event their votes are not counted as "Yes" or "No."

Notwithstanding this error, it seems clear to me that there was not a majority in the affirmative and, as a result, the church voted not to join the conference. Therefore, if a Point of Order were raised based on this "questioning the fact that we didn’t have a majority, it was just popular vote," I believe the point should be ruled not well taken. If a member still wishes to pursue joining the conference, a member is free to make a motion on this subject again in the future.

On 6/30/2023 at 7:12 AM, Guest Jessica said:

What should be done next to be ethically and morally correct. 

I can't speak to "morally and ethically," but as a matter of parliamentary correctness, I do not think anything needs to be done, other than to be more careful about how votes are phrased in the future.

A member who disagrees with the vote is free to make another motion on the subject in the future, but I do not see any grounds to challenge the outcome of the first vote.

Edited June 30, 2023 at 03:02 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/30/2023 at 11:01 AM, Josh Martin said:

Members can abstain, in which event their votes are not counted as "Yes" or "No."

At the risk of being labeled a pedant, I would phrase this differently:

Members can abstain, in which event they have not voted, so there is nothing to count.

[Guest Jessica]

After the vote was held it was realized that poor wording was used. Moving forward that is something to keep in mind. 
 

Other two votes consist of a vote for a a different conference and then one marked other with no write in choice. 

[Guest Jessica]

Everyone is new the process and we are doing our very best to be fair and do what is right. 

[J. J.]

On 6/30/2023 at 11:48 AM, Guest Jessica said:

Everyone is new the process and we are doing our very best to be fair and do what is right. 

Was this done by a secret ballot? 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/30/2023 at 11:48 AM, Guest Jessica said:

Everyone is new the process and we are doing our very best to be fair and do what is right. 

Understood.

When proposing a motion to do something, it is proper to phrase it in such a way that there is a clear Yes/No choice.  Having three choices, one of which is labeled "Other" but without defining it deprives the voter of the opportunity to reject the motion entirely. 

Consider this ballot:

Choose one:

• Paint the clubhouse red.
• Paint the clubhouse blue.
• Paint the clubhouse some other color (unspecified).

What do I do if I do not want the clubhouse to be painted at all?

For future reference, a well-formed motion would be something like:  To join the church conference. Then voters who favored joining would vote Yes, and those who oppose it would vote No.  If less than a majority voted Yes, the church would remain independent.  

In the case you describe in your question, since choosing the third "other" option essentially did not express a preference, it could be argued that it should be called an abstention, and not counted as a vote.  In that event, the option to remain independent would be the "winning" choice.  But even if we count the two "Other" votes as a vote and declare that no choice reached a majority, what is the result?  Well, then nothing would be done, effectively meaning that the church would not join the conference, so the result is exactly the same.

Note that it is improper to include a choice on the ballot which simply describes the status quo, i.e., not doing anything.  This is achieved by voting No.

In situations like the clubhouse vote, during debate on a motion to paint the clubhouse some color, the amendment process would be used to first decide on the color, and once that's decided, vote on the motion to paint the clubhouse that color--Yes, or No.  If the motion fails, the clubhouse is not painted, but a future motion could explore other options.

[Guest Jessica]

Yes the vote was done by secret ballot. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/30/2023 at 12:14 PM, Guest Jessica said:

Yes the vote was done by secret ballot. 

That's fine if members want a secret ballot, but even then, the two choices should be Yes and No.  Those who want to abstain can simply not turn in a ballot, or if they want to keep their abstention secret, can cast a blank ballot.  Blank ballots are ignored during counting.

[J. J.]

On 6/30/2023 at 12:14 PM, Guest Jessica said:

Yes the vote was done by secret ballot. 

I think that, because of that, you will need to re-ballot (implicitly, 45:21). 

The vote should be phrased "To affiliate with Conference (or Church) ______."  Filling blanks would be a preferable method (12:91-12:113).  That can be a bit difficult.  

IMO, you could vote "To affiliate with Conference A."  If that fails, you could move on to a motion "To affiliate with Conference B."  If that fails you repeat until you run out of conferences.  If you don't affiliate with a conference, you remain independent.  That should be explained prior to the vote.  

 

[Josh Martin]

On 6/30/2023 at 10:36 AM, Guest Jessica said:

Other two votes consist of a vote for a a different conference and then one marked other with no write in choice. 

For future reference, that's not how the vote should be conducted. While there are some exceptions (an election for an officer position, for example) generally the only choices are "Yes" or "No." There is no "Other."

On 6/30/2023 at 10:48 AM, Guest Jessica said:

Everyone is new the process and we are doing our very best to be fair and do what is right. 

It seems to me the simplest solution is for someone to make a new motion on this subject and to follow the correct procedures next time.

[puzzling]

What do your bylaws say about this, I think a motion so important as the one described  , needs the same vote as a bylaws amendment. (It is curious that the bylaws would nit state of which conference the Church is a member, or hhat the church is independent)

[Guest Jessica]

On 6/30/2023 at 2:28 PM, puzzling said:

What do your bylaws say about this, I think a motion so important as the one described  , needs the same vote as a bylaws amendment. (It is curious that the bylaws would nit state of which conference the Church is a member, or hhat the church is independent)

The Church has voted to disaffiliated from UMC and disaffiliation process has been completed. So technically since the we are not part of conference we are considered independent. No bylaws have been implemented since the disaffiliation took, just a few weeks ago. Bylaws are next step on the agenda. 

[Guest Jessica]

This is exactly what I will suggest at the business meeting on Sunday. 

[Josh Martin]

On 6/30/2023 at 1:28 PM, puzzling said:

What do your bylaws say about this, I think a motion so important as the one described  , needs the same vote as a bylaws amendment.

This seems like a reasonable suggestion generally, but apparently the church has not yet adopted bylaws, so I suppose a majority vote would be sufficient.

On 6/30/2023 at 2:47 PM, Guest Jessica said:

This is exactly what I will suggest at the business meeting on Sunday. 

It's not entirely clear to me what this is in response to.