Does A misunderstanding of Abstain make a vote invalid?

[Drake Savory]

On 8/13/2024 at 1:42 PM, Dan Honemann said:

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.

What about the Chair simply dispose of it at that meeting.  I assume if he said it passed due to meeting the 3/4 threshold of those voting, a point of order could be made at that time.  My question would be if the Chair declares the motion failed, could it be renewed at that same meeting or would they have to wait until the next meeting?

[Guest David]

On 8/13/2024 at 3:01 PM, Dan Honemann said:

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.  

Maybe I'm missing a step here.... What does that  do to the secret ballot vote that happened in the previous meeting? our by laws call the vote to be that way.

 

[Guest David]

Since the motion was not properly disposed of am I to understand that it's open game  or has it essentially be tabled and need to be treated as such?

[Rob Elsman]

As I understand the facts, there is no dispute about the number of votes on each side of the question, so taking another vote is not proper under the rules. What is needed is for the chair to announce the result of the vote like he was supposed to have done originally. It may be that everyone will acquiesce to the announcement, and everyone can go home; otherwise, the opportunity arises for someone to raise a Point of Order that the announcement was made in error on account that the chair misinterpreted the relevant bylaw. From that point, the proper handling of a Point of Order (and, perhaps, an Appeal from the decision of the chair) is well known.

[Guest David]

The results were announced. What was debated and the purpose of my thread, was the Chairman misspoke of how abstains were to affect the required 3/4 vote.  People voted accordingly.  In the end and after clarifying with the denomination leaders of the clear reading of the by-laws revealed what  the Chair said was wrong. People may have voted different if they understood better.  

At this point the proper procedure within the RRO are complex to a non parliamentarian group of people as to if the  vote was tabled? (never specified and not disposed of properly)- how to correct that. And in humbly acknowledging the mistake and  how to go about reintroducing the idea of voting again understanding better how abstains are seen. -- and how to go about that properly.

All that while explaining why a renew of motion can happen.- to both those who want o revote in the proper way and to those who were fine in the results and might not like revoting at all.

 

[Richard Brown]

On 8/13/2024 at 3:01 PM, Dan Honemann said:

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.  

But, what to do about the fact that a vote was taken, the vote counts were announced, but the vote result, i.e., the declaration of whether the motion passed or failed has not yet been made.? How is voting again proper without some sort of finding that something about the first vote was somehow improper and that the results are null and void?  We have not been advised of any illegal votes being cast or of anyone being denied the right to vote. It seems a proper vote was taken, but the results have not yet been announced.  Do they just pretend that that vote never happened?  What rule in RONR permits that? 

Edited to add: why wouldn’t the next step be, at the next special meeting, for the chair to announce the vote result and declare whether the motion was carried or lost?  At that time his declaration can be accepted or someone can raise a point of order that it is in error, or someone can move to reconsider. There might even be other options. 
 

Edited August 13, 2024 at 10:06 PM by Richard Brown
Corrected grammatical errors and added last paragraph

[Rob Elsman]

What everyone is waiting for is for the chair to announce whether the motion was adopted or rejected. The chair had no right to fail to perform his duty and throw the organization into unnecessary confusion and instability. If you all can just get him to do what he was and is supposed to do originally, then there will be procedures enough to settle whatever controversy there might be, if there is one at all. Can someone just get him to move one way or the other and do his duty? If not, you all need to get him out of the chair.

[Guest David]

I believe our chair is willing to admit he  is wrong. From that I think he could admit the results were one way. But under a pretense of wrong information.    where does he go to correct the confusion and have a better informed vote happen?

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/13/2024 at 6:01 PM, Guest David said:

I believe our chair is willing to admit he  is wrong. From that I think he could admit the results were one way. But under a pretense of wrong information.    where does he go to correct the confusion and have a better informed vote happen?

I gave you my opinion as to what I think should be done, and this opinion is based upon my understanding that the ruling of the chair which caused a dispute at the special meeting was made before the vote was taken. This ruling may have resulted in members abstaining from voting on the understanding that doing so would not have the effect of a no vote. 

Under these very unusual circumstances, it seems to me that if this ruling is now to be reversed based upon the complaints made at the meeting at which the ruling was made, another vote should be taken. 

 

[Drake Savory]

On 8/13/2024 at 3:31 PM, Guest David said:

The results were announced.

Were they?  Did the Chair simply state the vote or did they explicitly say whether or not the motion passed? 

[Rob Elsman]

Nobody asks anything more of him than he do his best. The operative word is do. He is obligated to perform his duty by doing what he supposed to do. He has the duty to announce whether the motion is adopted or rejected. What is not available to him is exactly the course he has undertaken.

We cannot know in advance whether there will be a controversy at all until the announcement is made. It could well be that everyone will accept or acquiesce to the chair's announcement, in which case, everything is done.

[Richard Brown]

On 8/13/2024 at 4:31 PM, Guest David said:

The results were announced

 

On 8/13/2024 at 5:31 PM, Drake Savory said:

Were they?  Did the Chair simply state the vote or did they explicitly say whether or not the motion passed? 

I agree with Drake Savory and Rob Elsman.  Announcing the vote totals is not what is meant by “declaring the result of the vote”. Giving the vote totals is essentially the tellers report. It is up to the chair to announce whether the motion was carried or lost or which candidates won and lost.  That was never done.   In my opinion, that is the first thing that needs to be done at the next meeting. From that point there are various options, starting with appealing from the ruling of the chair.  A motion to reconsider the vote on the motion to hire the pastor would also be in order.

I think the chair’s initial statements that abstentions would not count are either just him making a statement or, at most, a response to a parliamentary inquiry. A response to a parliamentary inquiry is not a ruling.

Edited August 13, 2024 at 10:46 PM by Richard Brown
Spelling correction and added that I also agree with Rob Esman in the first sentence

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/13/2024 at 6:41 PM, Richard Brown said:

I agree with Drake Savary. Announcing the vote totals is not what is meant by “declaring the result of the vote”. Giving the vote totals is essentially the tellers report. It is up to the chair to announce whether the motion was carried or lost or which candidates won and lost.  That was never done.   In my opinion, that is the first thing that needs to be done at the next meeting. From that point there are various options, starting with appealing from the ruling of the chair.  A motion to reconsider the vote on the motion to hire the pastor would also be in order.

If you are correct that announcement of the result of the vote is the first thing to be done at the next special meeting, then the only immediate option then available will be to accept this result or take an appeal from it.  There will be no further vote on the motion itself.  It may be too late for anyone to move to reconsider the vote, since the rule is that such a motion must be made on the same day that the vote was taken.

On 8/13/2024 at 6:41 PM, Richard Brown said:

I think the chair’s initial statements that abstentions would not count are either just him making a statement or, at most, a response to a parliamentary inquiry. A response to a parliamentary inquiry is not a ruling from which there can be an appeal. 

I got the distinct impression that the chair made what amounted to a ruling that abstentions would not count, and he did so prior to any inquiry being made. Yes, he made a statement to this effect, but it was forceful enough to constitute a ruling.

But if my advice is followed, this is also a question which can be answered by means of the point of order and appeal process at the next meeting.

[Gary Novosielski]

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.

 

 

In any universe I'm familiar with, a Pastor candidate who found themselves in such a situation would run for the hills so fast that they would leave skid marks, thereby solving the problem about deciding what the vote was, for you.

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/13/2024 at 7:53 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

In any universe I'm familiar with, a Pastor candidate who found themselves in such a situation would run for the hills so fast that they would leave skid marks, thereby solving the problem about deciding what the vote was, for you.

This isn't in the least bit helpful.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/13/2024 at 8:05 PM, Dan Honemann said:

This isn't in the least bit helpful.

Sorry, it was not my intention to offend.

And admittedly I strayed well beyond the four corners of any page of RONR.

As a practical matter, however, my intention was to suggest to a congregation engaged in calling a pastor that it's wise to consider how it looks from the point of view of the candidate.  Having failed (or even succeeded) by a single vote suggests a lack of unity on an important question, which would be a cause for concern for a candidate.  My original phrasing was inartful, for which I apologize. It is not my place to judge this group, but I was motivated by having seen a situation much like this one go very badly.

 

 

[Guest David]

On 8/13/2024 at 12:08 PM, Guest David said:

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)

 

to correct my typo-- NO action has happened...

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/14/2024 at 12:36 PM, Guest David said:

to correct my typo-- NO action has happened...

Well, do you understand the two courses of action that have been suggested you might take?  

[Guest David]

On 8/14/2024 at 12:27 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, do you understand the two courses of action that have been suggested you might take?  

Thank you Dan, for your inquiry and follow up.   I'm currently reviewing my RRO book to get it straight in my head. Semantics, nuances  are important.  

[Guest David]

Fundamental principles of parliamentary law seem to indicate that members basics rights includes 1) Clearly understand  what decision is being made. 2) clear understanding on how their vote effect the decision. I believe this principle  to be indicated in RONR 4:34. Would that be correct?

If it is not, section 47:6  where it says "no rules  can take the place of tact and common sense" would seem to guide members basic rights in voting. 

[Rob Elsman]

Nothing in the book indicates to me that either case is an instance of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

[Guest David]

I guess I'm speaking to the fact of members basic rights are to have this happen.