Does A misunderstanding of Abstain make a vote invalid?

[Guest David]

Our Chair spoke before a vote about how abstains were taken. He said that they would not count and have no effect of the needed 2/3 (75%) vote.

The vote was taken  and the motion did not pass by one vote.  Discussion ensued including a relook at the by-laws. Since confusion on how to interpret the reading, the motion and vote was not declared defeated and they tabled in light of getting a clearer understanding.

After further clarification, our by-laws call the for the 2/3 (75%)  to be from active members present- in which case RRO states they count as as no.

The question I have is, since the chair misspoke about the role of abstain and in the discussion  people admitted they voted under that pretense, does this make the vote invalid?  Or does this warranty a revote with a better understanding how the vote applies and effect the outcome?

The second question i I have is simply can the rules of rescinding, reconsider or renewing the motion come in to play for a possible revote?

Please quote RRO when you answer to the best that it address this. thank you.

[Richard Brown]

I think we need some more information before we can answer your question. You said the vote failed by one vote and then discussion took place and then “the motion and vote was not declared defeated“ and the motion was “tabled”.  A key question is, did the chair ever declare that the motion failed?  

I honestly do not understand exactly what happened and small details are important here. One issue that jumps off the page is that you said twice that the motion required a 2/3 (75%) vote to pass. Well, 2/3 is not 75%. 75% is 3/4, not 2/3.

So, please do three things for us: First,  try to clarify exactly what happened. 

Second, please quote the exact verbatim language from your bylaws about the vote required for that motion. Please do not paraphrase, but quote the language from the bylaws verbatim, exactly as it appears in the bylaws.

Third, tell us whether the chair, at any point, ever declared that the motion failed. Exactly what did he say immediately after the vote was taken? What do you mean when you say the motion and vote were “tabled”?
 

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

On 8/13/2024 at 6:43 AM, Guest David said:

He said that they would not count and have no effect of the needed 2/3 (75%) vote.

 

These are two different numbers. Which one is required?

On 8/13/2024 at 6:43 AM, Guest David said:

After further clarification, our by-laws call the for the 2/3 (75%)  to be from active members present- in which case RRO states they count as as no.

 

Further clarification during the meeting or after? An abstention has the same effect as a no vote when the threshold is calculated on those present, but not because RONR says so. It's just how the math works.

On 8/13/2024 at 6:43 AM, Guest David said:

The question I have is, since the chair misspoke about the role of abstain and in the discussion  people admitted they voted under that pretense, does this make the vote invalid?  Or does this warranty a revote with a better understanding how the vote applies and effect the outcome?

 

I do not think this creates a continuing breach. Rather, it is the sort of thing that needed to be objected to at the time.

On 8/13/2024 at 6:43 AM, Guest David said:

The second question i I have is simply can the rules of rescinding, reconsider or renewing the motion come in to play for a possible revote?

 

Well, what happened? We're told:

On 8/13/2024 at 6:43 AM, Guest David said:

The vote was taken  and the motion did not pass by one vote.  Discussion ensued including a relook at the by-laws. Since confusion on how to interpret the reading, the motion and vote was not declared defeated and they tabled in light of getting a clearer understanding.

 

I don't see how you can rescind anything if the motion didn't pass. Reconsider is out of order regardless. But, in any event, you'll presumably take it up at the next meeting and vote on it, whether by taking it off the table or by making it anew. The motion to table was out of order, but what's done is done. 

[Richard Brown]

Guest David, in addition to the questions that I asked in my first response, please tell us exactly what the vote count was: how many “active”  members were present, how many yes votes there were, how many no votes there were, and how many abstentions there were. The abstentions may or may not make a difference, depending upon the exact wording of your bylaws.

Edited August 13, 2024 at 02:29 PM by Richard Brown
Added last sentence

[Guest David]

Thank you for the response.  This is a church setting  where the calling of a Pastor was the motion.  Here's what the bylaws say: 

"The Elder Council will call a special business meeting following the candidate’s visit to vote regarding the hiring of the new Pastor. At least 51% of the Active Membership must be present, with a three-fourths (75%) vote by secret ballot of all Active Members present necessary for the Church to extend a call to the candidate"

The chair said before the vote abstains would not count. After relooking and stating the bylaws, the chair still interpreted as they don't count. Others pointed out the following highlight under the  FAQ of this website: 

"The phrase “abstention votes” is an oxymoron, an abstention being a refusal to vote. To abstain means to refrain from voting, and, as a consequence, there can be no such thing as an “abstention vote.”

In the usual situation, where the rules require either a “majority vote” or a “two-thirds vote,” abstentions have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the vote since what is required is either a majority or two thirds of the votes cast. On the other hand, if the rules explicitly require a majority or two thirds of the members present, or a majority or two thirds of the entire membership, an abstention will have the same effect as a “no” vote. Even in such a case, however, an abstention is not a vote and is not counted as a vote. [RONR (12th ed.) 44:1, 44:3, 44:9(a); see also p. 66 of RONR In Brief.]"

The chair still insisted how it was written in the bylaws, he interprets it in light of "usual situation" statement above. Other members agreed and other members disagreed.  One  of the people who abstained spoke up and revealed their vote as abstaining under the pretense that it wouldn't count.

He admitted we need more clarity of how this is interpreted.

The further clarification came outside of the meeting. In talking with our denominational leaders they said the the straight up reading of the by-laws would require abstentions to be counted as no votes.

The chair now understand this to mean abstains are counted (as no) since our language in the by -laws say "of all active members present".  He feels his mistake has possibly caused others to vote under a false pretense because of his misstatement.

 

 

[Rob Elsman]

No. The bylaw cited is clearly identifiable as a rule in the nature of a rule of order. RONR (12th ed.) 2:14. Such rules are, with exceptions, suspendable. RONR (12th ed.) 2:21. This being so, a Point of Order regarding the violation of the rule "...must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs." RONR (12th ed.) 23:5, since the breach does not fall within any of exceptions enumerated at 23:6. The failure to remedy the breach promptly does not give rise to a continuing breach that would render the vote null and void.

Also, see RONR (12th ed.) Off. Interp. 2006-18.

[Richard Brown]

Guest David, what did the chair say immediately after the vote was taken? Did he say the motion passed or did he say that the motion failed? 

Then, what happened next after the chair’s declaration of whether the motion passed or failed?

[Guest Daivid]

On 8/13/2024 at 9:10 AM, Joshua Katz said:

 

I don't see how you can rescind anything if the motion didn't pass. Reconsider is out of order regardless. But, in any event, you'll presumably take it up at the next meeting and vote on it, whether by taking it off the table or by making it anew. The motion to table was out of order, but what's done is done. 

Joshua,

How does "taking it up at the next meeting and vote on it... making it a new"  happen?  Is that tampering a vote?

[Guest David]

On 8/13/2024 at 10:24 AM, Richard Brown said:

Guest David, what did the chair say immediately after the vote was taken? Did he say the motion passed or did he say that the motion failed? 

Then, what happened next after the chair’s declaration of whether the motion passed or failed?

Hi David,

No he did not say the motion passed or failed

[Rob Elsman]

On 8/13/2024 at 8:43 AM, Guest David said:

The vote was taken  and the motion did not pass by one vote. 

This says it all. However poorly it might have been done, the members came to understand that the motion did not pass by a margin of one vote.

[Richard Brown]

On 8/13/2024 at 10:38 AM, Rob Elsman said:

This says it all. However poorly it might have been done, the members came to understand that the motion did not pass by a margin of one vote.

I disagree. That statement by Guest David is not what is controlling. The declaration by the chair as to whether a motion passed is what is usually controlling. In this case, Guest David’s latest statement is that the chair never declared whether the motion passed or failed. His original post indicates the matter has somehow been “tabled” or taken under advisement, indicating it is possible the chair has still not made a ruling as to whether the motion passed or failed. 

I do not think this is nearly so simple as the statement by Guest David that “The motion did not pass by one vote”. We don’t even know if that statement by Guest David is based on counting or not counting abstentions.  

There are simply too many unknowns to say that “this says it all“.

[Rob Elsman]

On 8/13/2024 at 10:24 AM, Guest Daivid said:

How does "taking it up at the next meeting and vote on it... making it a new"  happen?  Is that tampering a vote?

Since the main motion was rejected, it can be renewed at any later session and handled exactly as if it had never been made before. See RONR (12 ed.) §38.

[Joshua Katz]

On 8/13/2024 at 8:24 AM, Guest Daivid said:

How does "taking it up at the next meeting and vote on it... making it a new"  happen?  Is that tampering a vote?

Either it was "laid on the table" (improperly), or it was never disposed of. (I'm disagreeing with Mr. Elsman.) If the former, it can be taken off the table at the next session, if within a quarterly time period. If the latter, it will come up as unfinished business. Your organization will have to figure out which. Or you can pretend none of this happened, I think, and just make the motion. Not because that's a correct way to handle it, but because things are hopelessly confused at this point. Regardless, I don't understand the final question.

[Rob Elsman]

On 8/13/2024 at 11:02 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Either it was "laid on the table" (improperly), or it was never disposed of.

The minutes of the meeting should handily clear this up.

[Guest David]

On 8/13/2024 at 10:47 AM, Richard Brown said:

I disagree. That statement by Guest David is not what is controlling. The declaration by the chair as to whether a motion passed is what is usually controlling. In this case, Guest David’s latest statement is that the chair never declared whether the motion passed or failed. His original post indicates the matter has somehow been “tabled” or taken under advisement, indicating it is possible the chair has still not made a ruling as to whether the motion passed or failed. 

I do not think this is nearly so simple as the statement by Guest David that “The motion did not pass by one vote”. We don’t even know if that statement by Guest David is based on counting or not counting abstentions.  

There are simply too many unknowns to say that “this says it all“.

 Sorry I thought i  answered this. Thanks for your patience

the count was  51 yes 15 no 3 abstains.

 69 total active members were present at the time the vote.  by the time the counting was over it was reported 2 people had left.

[Richard Brown]

On 8/13/2024 at 11:08 AM, Guest David said:

the count was  51 yes 15 no 3 abstains.

 69 total active members were present at the time the vote.  by the time the counting was over it was reported 2 people had left.

Based on that information and the fact that the bylaws appear to require the affirmative vote of 75% of the active members present, 52 yes votes would be required to adopt the motion so the motion technically failed. However, that is not the end of the story. As I said in a previous post, the declaration of the chair as to whether a motion passed or failed is what is usually controlling. If the chair mistakenly reports whether the motion passed or failed, his declaration is final unless a timely Point of Order is raised. 

in this case, it seems we are being told that the chair never made a declaration as to whether the motion passed or failed. Is that true? The chair never ever, at any point, said whether the motion passed or failed?
 

[Guest David]

On 8/13/2024 at 11:18 AM, Richard Brown said:

Based on that information and the fact that the bylaws appear to require the affirmative vote of 75% of the active members present, 52 yes votes would be required to adopt the motion so the motion technically failed. However, that is not the end of the story. As I said in a previous post, the declaration of the chair as to whether a motion passed or failed is what is usually controlling. If the chair mistakenly reports whether the motion passed or failed, his declaration is final unless a timely Point of Order is raised. 

in this case, it seems we are being told that the chair never made a declaration as to whether the motion passed or failed. Is that true? The chair never ever, at any point, said whether the motion passed or failed?
 

Thank you Richard,

Admittedly I'm going off my memory  I'd have to see the minutes on if he ever declared it failed or passed.  Hypothetically, if that is the case.  is that the end of the story and  the vote binding? It seems that statements on the thread above indicate no and that a revote can be motioned. Is that tampering? Or in light of the clarification, a vote seems necessary?

[Guest David]

On 8/13/2024 at 11:02 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Either it was "laid on the table" (improperly), or it was never disposed of. (I'm disagreeing with Mr. Elsman.) If the former, it can be taken off the table at the next session, if within a quarterly time period. If the latter, it will come up as unfinished business. Your organization will have to figure out which. Or you can pretend none of this happened, I think, and just make the motion. Not because that's a correct way to handle it, but because things are hopelessly confused at this point. Regardless, I don't understand the final question.

Joshua,

I believe my initial question has been answered: No, the vote is not invalid or nullified because of the misstatement by the chair, due to the fact that no one objected and the vote went forward under that statement yet the by-laws were not adhered to.

I don't know if it my final question, but simply put and as you described your response the situation is hopelessly confused at this point  I guess the question is how to proceed?

Which you indicated how to do that. Undoubtedly, a question comes to mind, when is the vote binding if renew the motions keep happening?

[Richard Brown]

On 8/13/2024 at 11:05 AM, Rob Elsman said:

The minutes of the meeting should handily clear this up.

You’ve got a lot more faith in the accuracy and completeness of the minutes from a meeting such as this than I do! 😊

[Richard Brown]

On 8/13/2024 at 11:43 AM, Guest David said:

I guess the question is how to proceed?

If the final official position turns out to be that the motion failed, it may be renewed (made again) at the next or at any future meeting unless your bylaws contain a provision that prohibits doing so. I doubt that is the case.

[Guest David]

On 8/13/2024 at 11:47 AM, Richard Brown said:

You’ve got a lot more faith in the accuracy and completeness of the minutes from a meeting such as this than I do! 😊

Thank you for your candor- I literally laughed out loud.  

[Guest David,]

There are many tough parts to this. With it is sincere  people that desire what is best and fair.  They just aren't parliamentarians.

There was talk of revoting in the meeting but people left and people said we can't because of that (me included).  I can't find it in RRO but I understand now that is not true.. is this right?

There are those who are going to  want the motion  and vote to stay but it appears if a majority are for revoting it can happen...  is this right? Where is that in RRO

 

[Rob Elsman]

I have already said the motion can be renewed. Look back at my previous reply.

[Richard Brown]

I’m still curious, though, as to all of this business about reconsidering, tabling, or postponing the motion. Those of us on this forum do not know what actually took place. It might well be that what the body is trying to do is to reconsider the original vote even though no one made such a motion using those exact words. A motion to reconsider the vote would be in order, even if it was not properly phrased, provided the motion was made at the meeting where the original vote took place. It sounds to me like this might possibly be what was actually going on.  This gets technical, but the vote on a motion to reconsider can actually be taken at the next meeting.

[Guest David]

On 8/13/2024 at 11:51 AM, Richard Brown said:

If the final official position turns out to be that the motion failed, it may be renewed (made again) at the next or at any future meeting unless your bylaws contain a provision that prohibits doing so. I doubt that is the case.

This is true no provisions in By-laws  Now action has happened after the vote that can't be reversed. (I read something about it in RRO excerpts on line)