Reverse Roll Call Vote

[Guest Stikwoman]

Why would the board president call for a “reverse” roll call vote?  Usually the roll call vote is alphabetical A-Z and each roll call vote begins with the next person in line.  This time, the board president called for a roll call vote in reverse order which meant the president was first.  He proceeded to abstain as did three other people which caused the motion to fail.

9-person public school board.  Special meeting to fill one vacancy.  Meeting was on day 29.  At 31 days, citizens can petition a judge to appoint a director.  Conducted 7 interviews.  Motion was made for one candidate, president called for a vote, 4 abstained, 4 voted yes.  Motion failed.  This same thing repeated with 2 other candidates.  Then the meeting was adjourned with no other guidance on next steps.  Thank you.

 

[Rob Elsman]

I think you answered your own question. He wanted to respond first in order to try to influence how other members would respond.

I am less certain why you think the motion failed if this was some kind of election with "candidates".  Were the rules in RONR (12th ed.) controlling, the elections would have been won unanimously, since abstentions are ignored when counting.

[Guest Stikwoman]

Thank you.

The board president announced the motion failed - each time a vote was taken.

I thought it was going to be handled like an "election, given the number of candidates.  But the agenda item did not specify election - it just said "approve the appointment of ______ to fill the vacancy." 

The board does use RONR but district policy requires "affirmative votes of a majority of the full membership of the Board" to "appoint a school director to fill a vacancy on the Board."  That policy line references state law but the state law does NOT require majority vote of full membership.  It appears board policy takes precedence because the president ruled "the motion fails" each time. 

After the interviews concluded, the president announced that he would be abstaining because he was not in favor of voting that night, that it was "rushed" and he intended to abstain. 

The president then called for discussion, no one spoke, the solicitor whispered in the president's ear and the president called for adjournment.  One director quickly nominated a candidate.  The president called for discussion, paused, then called for a vote.  One director seemed confused and asked the president to explain the process being used.  The president just said it's a motion and moved forward with the vote. 

Four members voted affirmative, four abstained and the president announced that the motion failed.  Another applicant was nominated and the same thing played out.  Another applicant was nominated, same thing.  Then the president called for a motion to adjourn and meeting was adjourned.  The audience (and candidates) were left wondering what happened.  An audience member yelled out what just happened and the solicitor said "what we did was legal."  It was not good optics.

 

[Joshua Katz]

Well, a great deal here depends on relevant law and your own rules, so I'm not sure how much we can say.

The procedure that wound up being used resembles "filling a blank," in which alternatives are tried until one receives majority support. However, that is only appropriate where there is some logical sequencing, such that the least likely to be approved comes first. That doesn't work for people.

Your board policies most likely do not take precedence over state law, although that is a state law question. However, where they aren't in conflict but rather can both be followed, you'd (probably) follow both. So here, that would mean requiring the higher threshold, unless that actually inconsistent with what state law says. But that's a question for a lawyer, not us.

 

[Josh Martin]

I don't expect this forum will be of a great deal of help here, as the answers to your questions will ultimately be found in the board's rules and applicable law. I would advise contacting the attorney and/or the media. (Public pressure sometimes is an effective strategy for influencing elected officials.)

On 4/10/2024 at 7:27 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I am less certain why you think the motion failed if this was some kind of election with "candidates".  Were the rules in RONR (12th ed.) controlling, the elections would have been won unanimously, since abstentions are ignored when counting.

Since this is a public body, however, I'm not at all certain the rules in RONR (12th ed.) are controlling in this matter.

On 4/10/2024 at 5:57 PM, Guest Stikwoman said:

9-person public school board.  Special meeting to fill one vacancy.  Meeting was on day 29.  At 31 days, citizens can petition a judge to appoint a director.  Conducted 7 interviews.  Motion was made for one candidate, president called for a vote, 4 abstained, 4 voted yes.  Motion failed.  This same thing repeated with 2 other candidates.  Then the meeting was adjourned with no other guidance on next steps.  Thank you.

I will assume for the sake of argument that your school board's rules or applicable law, it is correct that a vote of 4-0 is insufficient to elect a director.

If the rules in RONR are controlling, the next steps would be to repeat the election at the next meeting (perhaps seeking new nominations in the interim), and continue to repeat the election as many times as is necessary until the board elects a candidate to fill the vacancy.

Because this is a public body, however, I expect that any next steps in this matter will be controlled by applicable law.

On 4/10/2024 at 8:25 PM, Guest Stikwoman said:

The board does use RONR but district policy requires "affirmative votes of a majority of the full membership of the Board" to "appoint a school director to fill a vacancy on the Board."  That policy line references state law but the state law does NOT require majority vote of full membership.  It appears board policy takes precedence because the president ruled "the motion fails" each time. 

Assuming for the sake of argument that the board's rule is controlling in this matter, the President is correct that a vote of 4-0 is less than the full membership of the board for a board which (presently) has eight members.

It appears there may be some questions about the interaction with state law - that will be a question for an attorney.

On 4/10/2024 at 8:25 PM, Guest Stikwoman said:

After the interviews concluded, the president announced that he would be abstaining because he was not in favor of voting that night, that it was "rushed" and he intended to abstain. 

So I would note that, so far as RONR is concerned, the proper course of action if the member felt this process was "rushed" would have been to move to postpone the election, but it may well be the board was required to vote that night due to the board's rules or applicable law.

On 4/10/2024 at 8:25 PM, Guest Stikwoman said:

The president then called for discussion, no one spoke, the solicitor whispered in the president's ear and the president called for adjournment.  One director quickly nominated a candidate.  The president called for discussion, paused, then called for a vote.  One director seemed confused and asked the president to explain the process being used.  The president just said it's a motion and moved forward with the vote. 

My experience has been that some public bodies do indeed conduct their elections in this manner (for some bizarre reason) rather than conducting them in the manner called for in RONR. I can't say for certain whether this was the correct procedure for this board.