Improper counting of votes

[Guest Scott]

At a meeting last night, a motion was made and seconded. After discussion a vote was taken and there were 17 yea and 15 nay, with 26 abstentions. The moderator incorrectly counted the abstentions as nay votes and said the motion failed. The meeting was then adjourned. Since a majority of the ballots cast were yea, the vote should have passed. What should be done to rectify this situation?

[hmtcastle]

At a meeting last night, a motion was made and seconded. After discussion a vote was taken and there were 17 yea and 15 nay, with 26 abstentions. The moderator incorrectly counted the abstentions as nay votes and said the motion failed. The meeting was then adjourned. Since a majority of the ballots cast were yea, the vote should have passed. What should be done to rectify this situation?

Unfortunately, it's too late now to raise a timely point of order. That had to be done when the incorrect result was announced. But the defeated motion can be made again ("renewed") by any member at any subsequent meeting.

[Guest Scott]

Immediately after the vote the moderator stated the motion failed. A question was asked that it was 17-15 and that it passed, but the moderator stated abstentions counted as nay votes. Since "point of order" wasn't stated, is the original objection valid?

[Rob Elsman]

Immediately after the vote the moderator stated the motion failed. A question was asked that it was 17-15 and that it passed, but the moderator stated abstentions counted as nay votes. Since "point of order" wasn't stated, is the original objection valid?

A "...question was asked..." is not equivalent to the making of a Point of Order, RONR (10th ed.), §23, pp. 240ff. I agree with the others that, since a Point of Order was not made at the time, the result of the vote, as announced in error by the chair, stands. See RONR Off. Interp. 2006-18, www.robertsrules.com.

[hmtcastle]

Immediately after the vote the moderator stated the motion failed. A question was asked that it was 17-15 and that it passed, but the moderator stated abstentions counted as nay votes. Since "point of order" wasn't stated, is the original objection valid?

Well, it's not so much that the magic words "point of order" weren't used (though there is some value in learning the lingo). It's that the chair apparently ruled on the objection and no one pushed it further. In parliamentary terms, his ruling wasn't appealed.

But the silver lining is that the motion was defeated, not adopted. It's easier to do what wasn't done than it is to undo what was done.

[Rob Elsman]

Well, it's not so much that the magic words "point of order" weren't used (though there is some value in learning the lingo). It's that the chair apparently ruled on the objection and no one pushed it further. In parliamentary terms, his ruling wasn't appealed.

But the silver lining is that the motion was defeated, not adopted. It's easier to do what wasn't done than it is to undo what was done.

Yes, indeed; proper form is important. There is a real difference between the chairman's response to a Parliamentary Inquiry and his ruling on a Point of Order. Unless proper form is used, it may be impossible to tell which is really being made. In this case, whichever it was, there seems to be nothing in the facts that the assembly overturned the original announcement of the result of the vote, so what was announced--even if it was in error--stands.

[hmtcastle]

Yes, indeed; proper form is important. There is a real difference between the chairman's response to a Parliamentary Inquiry and his ruling on a Point of Order. Unless proper form is used, it may be impossible to tell which is really being made.

"The president should never be technical or more strict than is necessary for the good of the meeting. Good judgment is essential; the assembly may be of such a nature, through its unfamiliarity with parliamentary usage and its peaceable disposition, that strict enforcement of the rules, instead of assisting, would greatly hinder business." (p.440)

[Mr. J!]

"The president should never be technical or more strict than is necessary for the good of the meeting. Good judgment is essential; the assembly may be of such a nature, through its unfamiliarity with parliamentary usage and its peaceable disposition, that strict enforcement of the rules, instead of assisting, would greatly hinder business." (p.440)

Excellent advice, of course. The chair may assist an inexperienced member by inquiring whether the member is simply asking a question or is raising an objection.

In any case, it is too late now to raise an objection, but at the next session, the motion may be renewed: made again and treated as a brand new one. At that time, make sure the chair knows how to treat abstentions, which are not votes.

[alanh49]

At a meeting last night, a motion was made and seconded. After discussion a vote was taken and there were 17 yea and 15 nay, with 26 abstentions. The moderator incorrectly counted the abstentions as nay votes and said the motion failed. The meeting was then adjourned. Since a majority of the ballots cast were yea, the vote should have passed. What should be done to rectify this situation?

I have to ask are you sure that there is nothing in your rules that say you need the vote of a majority of the members present in order to pass this motion.

Because if there is the moderator was right to say the motion failed.

[Guest Me]

RONR says:

In the usual situation, where either a majority vote or a two-thirds vote is required, 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 vote required is 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. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 387, l. 7-13; p. 388, l. 3-6; p. 390, l. 13-24; see also p.66 of RONR In Brief.]

That being said,

Different organizations operate differently. Some require majority of votes cast, some require majority of eligible voters present. So, it's up to interpretation of your by-laws...or precedent if not stated in your by-laws. If your votes in the past (show of hand and/or ballot) require majority or 2/3 of members present, then that would be the requirement. My guess is that is how your organization counts votes since your moderator "counted" the abstentions as "nay" votes...meaning your organization requires majority or 2/3 of eligible voters present to pass a vote.

[hmtcastle]

If your votes in the past (show of hand and/or ballot) require majority or 2/3 of members present, then that would be the requirement

Not unless there is a written rule to that effect. Past practice (i.e. custom) is superseded by RONR in this case.

[Josh Martin]

or precedent if not stated in your by-laws. If your votes in the past (show of hand and/or ballot) require majority or 2/3 of members present, then that would be the requirement.

What you said was correct until you got here. First of all, in parliamentary law, "precedent" refers to what is created by a ruling of the chair and any subsequent appeal. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 294, lines 28-30) The fact that you've done something a certain way in the past is not precedent, but custom, which yields to the written rules of the assembly if there is a conflict. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 17, lines 7-15) You don't keep doing something wrong just because you've been doing it wrong.

My guess is that is how your organization counts votes since your moderator "counted" the abstentions as "nay" votes...meaning your organization requires majority or 2/3 of eligible voters present to pass a vote.

Why assume that? The moderator might just not know the proper rule.