Point of Order based on p. 244 (d)

[Chris Harrison]

Say an assembly votes on a motion by ballot and allowed a member who wasn't present to vote absentee (the bylaws don't address absentee voting). The motion is adopted 50-1. At a later meeting a member raises a Point of Order that since absentee voting is not allowed per the bylaws the action taken is null and void based on RONR p. 244(d). When the Chair rules how should he rule?

1) Not Well Taken because the single absentee vote could not affect the results of the vote. or

2) Well Taken. However, the vote still stands because the single absentee vote could not affect the results of the vote.

Also, if the motion was adopted 51-49 should the Chair's response be changed any?

[George Mervosh]

#2, and if it's possible the violation could have affected the result the motion should be declared well taken and the adopted motion is null and void

[Chris Harrison]

#2, and if it's possible the violation could have affected the result the motion should be declared well taken and the adopted motion is null and void

That is what I was thinking. However, I always got the impression that folks here were saying that the Point of Order should be ruled Not Well Taken if the absentee votes could not have affected the results.

[jstackpo]

"However, I always got the impression that folks here were saying that the Point of Order should be ruled Not Well Taken if the absentee votes could not have affected the results."

Not quite what I thought -- it is the effect of _illegal_ votes that gets ignored if they, the votes, make no difference in the outcome. Absentee voting (p. 408) violates a "fundamental principal" and gets you in deep doo-doo even when such a vote is really of no consequence. Seems to me that the level of violation is such that the whole decision is invalidated.

[George Mervosh]

That is what I was thinking. However, I always got the impression that folks here were saying that the Point of Order should be ruled Not Well Taken if the absentee votes could not have affected the results.

The net effect is the same but I'd say it's improper for a Chair to state something that's just not accurate ("we didn't violate the rules".....when they clearly did) especially since his ruling is memorialized in the minutes.

[Dan Honemann]

"However, I always got the impression that folks here were saying that the Point of Order should be ruled Not Well Taken if the absentee votes could not have affected the results."

Not quite what I thought -- it is the effect of _illegal_ votes that gets ignored if they, the votes, make no difference in the outcome. Absentee voting (p. 408) violates a "fundamental principal" and gets you in deep doo-doo even when such a vote is really of no consequence. Seems to me that the level of violation is such that the whole decision is invalidated.

Well, I was with you up until the end.

It seems to me that George has got it right.

[Rob Elsman]

My own sense is that the Point of Order is dilatory and should not admitted or ruled upon at all.

[Dan Honemann]

My own sense is that the Point of Order is dilatory and should not admitted or ruled upon at all.

A point of order concerning the breach of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law dilatory? I don't think so.

[Rob Elsman]

A point of order concerning the breach of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law dilatory? I don't think so.

A Point of Order should not be raised about a purely technical breach of the rules when the chair's ruling either way would make no earthly difference.

[Dan Honemann]

A Point of Order should not be raised about a purely technical breach of the rules when the chair's ruling either way would make no earthly difference.

I disagree that this is a "purely technical breach", and I very much disagree that "the chair's ruling either way" will make no earthly difference.

[Rob Elsman]

I disagree that this is a "purely technical breach", and I very much disagree that "the chair's ruling either way" will make no earthly difference.

The motion was adopted, either way, and there is no legitimate purpose for the chair to make a ruling whose only effect is to reaffirm what the rule already says.

[Dan Honemann]

The motion was adopted, either way, and there is no legitimate purpose for the chair to make a ruling whose only effect is to reaffirm what the rule already says.

Well, you no doubt also disagree with what is said in the second paragraph of the answer given RONR Official Interpretation 2006-6, but I don't intend to argue about it.

[Ann Rempel]

It seems to me that George has got it right.

Does the trophy transfer from Gary to George at this point?

[Tim Wynn]

Does the trophy transfer from Gary to George at this point?

It'll go to his head.

[J. J.]

isn't there an interpretation covering this? A well written that agrees with George?

[Josh Martin]

isn't there an interpretation covering this? A well written that agrees with George?

Official Interpretation 2006-6 covers a similar question, as Mr. Honemann alluded to. If the same principles are applied (and I think they should be), then Mr. Mervosh's response is entirely correct.