Does A misunderstanding of Abstain make a vote invalid?

[Richard Brown]

On 8/13/2024 at 12:02 PM, Guest David, said:

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?

See the last comment I made, which should be immediately above this one, about reconsidering the vote on the motion. Reconsideration is, or would have been, an option, depending on exactly what was done. The fact that some members left would not prohibit reconsideration. 

[Richard Brown]

On 8/13/2024 at 12:02 PM, Guest David, said:

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

Renewal of motions is covered in section 38 of RONR (12 th ed.).  Reconsider, which can get rather complicated, is covered in section 37.  

[Rob Elsman]

A motion that, because of a change of circumstances, is absurd cannot be renewed.

[Richard Brown]

On 8/13/2024 at 12:15 PM, Rob Elsman said:

A motion that, because of a change of circumstances, is absurd cannot be renewed.

How is renewing the motion to hire a new minister that failed by one vote absurd?

Edited August 13, 2024 at 05:21 PM by Richard Brown
Added the words “that failed by one vote“

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/13/2024 at 9:43 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.

Please quote the bylaws provision exactly, without paraphrasing.  Two thirds is not 75%, so that can't be what the bylaws say. I hope.

Meanwhile, RONR never says that abstentions "count" as a No.  Abstentions are neither called for nor counted.  Abstentions sometimes have the same effect as a No vote, but they don't have to be counted to have that effect.  It's simply that they are not Yes votes, which is all that matters if the threshold is a certain fraction of those present, rather than those present and voting, which is the default in RONR.

[Richard Brown]

On 8/13/2024 at 12:35 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Please quote the bylaws provision exactly, without paraphrasing.  Two thirds is not 75%, so that can't be what the bylaws say. I hope.

Gary, he quoted the bylaw provision verbatim many comments ago. Did you read the other comments before posting?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/13/2024 at 1:42 PM, Richard Brown said:

Gary, he quoted the bylaw provision verbatim many comments ago. Did you read the other comments before posting?

I did look for it, and did not see it.  If it is, in fact, 75%, I'd be surprised whenever anything got passed.  

[Richard Brown]

On 8/13/2024 at 12:45 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I did look for it, and did not see it.  If it is, in fact, 75%, I'd be surprised whenever anything got passed.  

It’s in the fourth comment after the original post.  Joshua Katz and I jumped on that right away with the first two comments.

Edited August 13, 2024 at 05:51 PM by Richard Brown

[Gary Novosielski]

Okay, I see it now. 

The OP appears still to misapprehend that abstentions are "counted" as No votes when the threshold refers to members present.  One thing the chair got right is that counting abstentions (at all) is meaningless.  Even when they do have the effect of No votes, they do so whether anyone knows how many, if any, abstentions occurred.

Edited August 13, 2024 at 06:21 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Joshua Katz]

On 8/13/2024 at 9:43 AM, Guest David said:

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?

 

By "final question" I meant the bit about tampering.

[Guest David]

Richard,

Few things:

1. I've just had a conversation with the chair person-  He didn't table it He said :  I will not declare the vote until we get further clarification from the denomination for our understanding of the by-laws

2. You said: "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."  Bingo!! That is what was suggested but shot down because of the misunderstanding of people leaving.

3. Reconsiders seem really tricky But could you explain what RRO says?  For lack of better semantics -seems that the 26% who caused the vote to fail. can only bring the consideration in this case.  It also seems that if not announced the motion has to pass with 75% of those present instead of a majority in order to just get to the revote. No?

4. renew the motion seems cleaner in a very confusing mess that we are in.  I'm just unsure how that is different than declaring another meeting to consider a revote and if that is considered tampering (said previously)  maybe a better word, -  "not allow to happen" "can't change a votes outcome" etc..

[Joshua Katz]

On 8/13/2024 at 11:16 AM, Guest David said:

1. I've just had a conversation with the chair person-  He didn't table it He said :  I will not declare the vote until we get further clarification from the denomination for our understanding of the by-laws

 

While this probably wasn't ill-intended, he has no power to do any of this. If he won't decide a question on the rules, he should submit it to the assembly. He has no right to say the body can't act.

 

[Richard Brown]

On 8/13/2024 at 1:16 PM, Guest David said:

I've just had a conversation with the chair person-  He didn't table it He said :  I will not declare the vote until we get further clarification from the denomination for our understanding of the by-laws

 

On 8/13/2024 at 1:24 PM, Joshua Katz said:

While this probably wasn't ill-intended, he has no power to do any of this. If he won't decide a question on the rules, he should submit it to the assembly. He has no right to say the body can't act.

 

Well, regardless of whether this is what the chair should have done, it appears to be what the chair did do: he seems to have essentially taken his decision or ruling as to whether the motion passed “under advisement“. Honestly, I’m not sure where that leaves us other than to say perhaps it could be taken up at the next meeting under unfinished business — the unfinished business being the lack of a ruling by the chair as to whether the motion passed or failed. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/13/2024 at 2:24 PM, Joshua Katz said:

While this probably wasn't ill-intended, he has no power to do any of this. If he won't decide a question on the rules, he should submit it to the assembly. He has no right to say the body can't act.

 

I can't disagree with that, but since this is a decision regarding a vote, it could be said that submitting it to the assembly would simply amount to a revote, with a possibility that it could become turtles all the way down.

[Dan Honemann]

Since the chair did not declare the motion either adopted or rejected, the motion remained undisposed of at the adjournment of this special meeting.  Which raises a new question.  Was this meeting simply adjourned or, prior to adjournment, was another meeting scheduled to continue the meeting (called an "adjourned meeting")? 

[Richard Brown]

On 8/13/2024 at 1:54 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Since the chair did not declare the motion either adopted or rejected, the motion remained undisposed of at the adjournment of this special meeting. 

Oh, Jeez, I was not aware (or I had completely forgotten) that this was a special meeting. Guest David did not mention it in his original post, and I believe it is mentioned only in post number five where he quoted the bylaw provision that says the hiring of a new pastor shall be done at a special meeting.

Was it ever established that this actually was in fact a special meeting? 

[Rob Elsman]

On 8/13/2024 at 1:16 PM, Guest David said:

I will not declare the vote until we get further clarification from the denomination for our understanding of the by-laws

This is not my understanding of "... announce the result of each vote..." in RONR (12th ed.) 47:7(4).

In my opinion, this officer is guilty of dereliction of duty and should be removed from office. He is obviously incompetent and causing the meetings to turn into a mess.

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/13/2024 at 3:21 PM, Rob Elsman said:

This is not my understanding of "... announce the result of each vote..." in RONR (12th ed.) 47:7(4).

In my opinion, this officer is guilty of dereliction of duty and should be removed from office. He is obviously incompetent and causing the meetings to turn into a mess.

This is unduly harsh.

[Richard Brown]

On 8/13/2024 at 2:23 PM, Dan Honemann said:

This is unduly harsh.

Amen. Extremely so. In fact, it seems to me that the chair, although not as knowledgeable about procedure as we would like, was bending over backwards to try to do the right thing and was not intentionally being misleading nor trying to gavel anything through. He was apparently mistaken on a vote threshold which many people —!including parliamentarians — get wrong.  We have LOTS of threads about that particular issue in this forum!

[Guest David]

On 8/13/2024 at 1:54 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Since the chair did not declare the motion either adopted or rejected, the motion remained undisposed of at the adjournment of this special meeting.  Which raises a new question.  Was this meeting simply adjourned or, prior to adjournment, was another meeting scheduled to continue the meeting (called an "adjourned meeting")? 

Hello Dan,

Simply adjourned IMO

It was said before dismissing that they would get clarification and follow up on email on the next steps.

I will say there was already, earlier in the meeting,  a verbal announcement that a  town hall (not formal) meeting is scheduled for the next Sunday.  

A formal announcement of a special meeting being scheduled for a "possible revote for Senior Pastor in abundance of caution." was scheduled.

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/13/2024 at 3:33 PM, Guest David said:

Hello Dan,

Simply adjourned IMO

It was said before dismissing that they would get clarification and follow up on email on the next steps.

I will say there was already, earlier in the meeting,  a verbal announcement that a  town hall (not formal) meeting is scheduled for the next Sunday.  

A formal announcement of a special meeting being scheduled for a "possible revote for Senior Pastor in abundance of caution." was scheduled.

 

 

I think this is exactly the right thing to do.  At this new special meeting, the chair should announce the motion that was not disposed of at the previous special meeting as pending, and open the floor to debate.  When debate (if any) is concluded, the chair should put the question to a vote.  

[Guest David]

 

 

Thank you for that. That is very gracious.  The chair is as Richard described. 

To answer your question: yes there is full awareness by everyone that this was a special meeting called for that single purpose. It was announced as such.

You mention there are other thread about mistake threshold issues. If you could direct me to some it would help.

Over all though, renewing the motion seems to be the area of RRO I need to understand and read up on.

Richard- you said a reconsider might be in order...?

Dan- it does feel like the right thing to do. Its difficult because motives will be judged, since we are humans.   I'm curious of where i can find that action or support of it in RRO for those who know just enough of the RRO to be (dangerous, as the saying goes) more probably, inaccurate.

[Guest David]

On 8/13/2024 at 2:42 PM, Dan Honemann said:

... the chair should put the question to a vote.  

To clarify, you mean to put the question to vote by stating a motion to revote?  or the original question we voted on(ie to call the pastor)?

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/13/2024 at 3:54 PM, Guest David said:

To clarify, you mean to put the question to vote by stating a motion to revote?  or the original question we voted on(ie to call the pastor)?

There is no need for, nor should there be, a motion to revote.  As I said previously, at the new special meeting the chair should announce that the original question you voted on (the one to call the pastor) is the pending motion, and open the floor to debate on that motion.  When debate (if any) is concluded, the chair should put that question to a vote.  

[Guest David]

On 8/13/2024 at 2:29 PM, Richard Brown said:

Amen. Extremely so. In fact, it seems to me that the chair, although not as knowledgeable about procedure as we would like, was bending over backwards to try to do the right thing and was not intentionally being misleading nor trying to gavel anything through. He was apparently mistaken on a vote threshold which many people —!including parliamentarians — get wrong.  We have LOTS of threads about that particular issue in this forum!

Thank you for that Richard. he is as you said. But he's tryin to understand what he can do to correct it through all the jargon of renew the motion vs reconsider and educate the members of it.