Amending a decision that was previously incorrect

[Peter123]

Hello, 

I need help with something that happened at a meeting I was at. At our previous meeting a decision was made 13-7-5 (13 in favor, 7 opposed, 5 abstaining), which should have passed (13 is the majority of 20), but we did not realize this and failed it (we thought is was 13 votes for in favor vs 25 total votes, thus failing the motion). I recognize we should have done point of order at this moment, but our parliamentarian did not realize it at the time. My colleagues plan to bring up the issue at our next meeting, but unsure of what we should do. 

Would Amending the motion previously adopted be the rule here or what would the guidance be for this instance?

[Weldon Merritt]

On 10/17/2023 at 1:16 PM, Peter123 said:

Hello, 

I need help with something that happened at a meeting I was at. At our previous meeting a decision was made 13-7-5 (13 in favor, 7 opposed, 5 abstaining), which should have passed (13 is the majority of 20), but we did not realize this and failed it (we thought is was 13 votes for in favor vs 25 total votes, thus failing the motion). I recognize we should have done point of order at this moment, but our parliamentarian did not realize it at the time. My colleagues plan to bring up the issue at our next meeting, but unsure of what we should do. 

Would Amending the motion previously adopted be the rule here or what would the guidance be for this instance?

If the chair declared the motion lost, and no one raised a Point of Order at the time then the chair's declaration stands. So obviously, amending something previously adopted would not be applicable. And it's too late to move to Reconsider. The only option now is for someone to simply make the motion again, and do it properly next time. Of course, three is no guarantee that the motion will pass next time, but if not, it will be because the result was properly calculated, and not berceuse of a mistake.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/17/2023 at 3:16 PM, Peter123 said:

Hello, 

I need help with something that happened at a meeting I was at. At our previous meeting a decision was made 13-7-5 (13 in favor, 7 opposed, 5 abstaining), which should have passed (13 is the majority of 20), but we did not realize this and failed it (we thought is was 13 votes for in favor vs 25 total votes, thus failing the motion). I recognize we should have done point of order at this moment, but our parliamentarian did not realize it at the time. My colleagues plan to bring up the issue at our next meeting, but unsure of what we should do. 

Would Amending the motion previously adopted be the rule here or what would the guidance be for this instance?

No, nothing was adopted, so there is nothing to amend.  Just make the motion again.  It's too late to do anything else at this point.

You need a refresher on how to count votes.  There were not 25 votes, there were only 20.  When people abstain, voting is what they abstain from.  They did not vote at all. so the vote was 13-7.  Since 13 is greater than 7, a majority was achieved, but unfortunately that's not what was declared.  Whenever there are more Yes votes than No votes, a majority vote is achieved. Therefore, a tie vote is less than a majority.  Abstentions are not asked for, and not counted.  They don't matter.

[Joshua Katz]

On 10/17/2023 at 8:49 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

You need a refresher on how to count votes.  There were not 25 votes, there were only 20.  When people abstain, voting is what they abstain from.  They did not vote at all. so the vote was 13-7.  Since 13 is greater than 7, a majority was achieved, but unfortunately that's not what was declared.  Whenever there are more Yes votes than No votes, a majority vote is achieved. Therefore, a tie vote is less than a majority.  Abstentions are not asked for, and not counted.  They don't matter.

How does this differ from what OP said? Maybe the chair needs a refresher. But the refresher would have nothing to do with whether those 5 abstainers count against a majority, because 13 is a majority of 25, too. So I don't know what the chair was thinking, or the assembly in not objecting. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/18/2023 at 7:00 AM, Joshua Katz said:

How does this differ from what OP said? Maybe the chair needs a refresher. But the refresher would have nothing to do with whether those 5 abstainers count against a majority, because 13 is a majority of 25, too. So I don't know what the chair was thinking, or the assembly in not objecting. 

How does it differ?  Let me count the ways. ... Three.  (Which are left as an exercise for the reader to find.)

But I'll grant you that it is probably the chair, and not @Peter123 himself, who needs the refresher. He needs to learn how to ignore abstentions, how to compare two numbers, and to recognize that his divide-by-two skills are less than reliable. 

The parliamentarian... well, don't get me started.

 

[Joshua Katz]

If you agree that it's the chair that needs the refresher, not OP, then we agree. I was just jumping in to ensure that we weren't telling OP, who is (now) correct, to take a refresher.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/18/2023 at 10:53 AM, Joshua Katz said:

If you agree that it's the chair that needs the refresher, not OP, then we agree. I was just jumping in to ensure that we weren't telling OP, who is (now) correct, to take a refresher.

 

Not at all.  Worst case, I meant the society as a group, as in "y'all" could benefit from a refresher, or in the lingo of the land of my birth, "youse" could "use" one.

But the OP showed the obvious signs of true noble character by raising the question here, and should be commended.