Voting

[Guest Scott]

If an item was voted on and defeated be motioned again later and voted on again?

[hmtcastle]

If an item was voted on and defeated be motioned again later and voted on again?

At any subsequent meeting, sure. It's known as "renewing" the motion. Any member can do it. Reconsidering it at the same meeting is a little trickier.

[Guest Scott]

At any subsequent meeting, sure. It's known as "renewing" the motion. Any member can do it. Reconsidering it at the same meeting is a little trickier.

The first motion failed and several others failed after that and then later this same first motion was brought up again voted on and passed. Can it now be considered unvalid or since no one protested it at the time is it considered valid?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

The first motion failed and several others failed after that.

Then, later, this same first motion was brought up again voted on and passed.

Can it now be considered unvalid or since no one protested it at the time is it considered valid?

Scott, let's clarify the flow of "when".

Are you saying the following is what happened?

1. At 8:05, a motion is moved and seconded, and ultimately voted on. The motion fails.

2. At 9:12, the same motion (or a motion of similar intent or similar wording) is moved and seconded, and ultimately voted on. The motion passes.

Q. Is that a match for your scenario?

If that is a match for your scenario, then the motion stands as adopted.

A rejected motion can be adopted later.

(Vice versa is not possible, or rather, to accomplish the reverse would require a slight change in flow.)

[Rob Elsman]

The first motion failed and several others failed after that and then later this same first motion was brought up again voted on and passed. Can it now be considered unvalid or since no one protested it at the time is it considered valid?

The adoption of the motion stands, since a Point of Order was not raised at the time the motion was made. See RONR (10th ed.), pp. 106, 107, 243, 244.

[Guest MBirch]

If I vote to approve a new member to fill a board position, and then hear later on that this person is not right to fill that position, and the board has not taken action to fully announce the vote to members, can I 'withdraw' my vote? Can I claim I have new information and that my vote was 'wrong'.?

[hmtcastle]

If I vote to approve a new member to fill a board position, and then hear later on that this person is not right to fill that position, and the board has not taken action to fully announce the vote to members, can I 'withdraw' my vote? Can I claim I have new information and that my vote was 'wrong'.?

You can't withdraw your vote but you can tell whoemver will listen that you were wrong. I think we've all voted for someone we wish we hadn't voted for.

[Tim Wynn]

If I vote to approve a new member to fill a board position, and then hear later on that this person is not right to fill that position, and the board has not taken action to fully announce the vote to members, can I 'withdraw' my vote? Can I claim I have new information and that my vote was 'wrong'.?

You have the right to change your vote until the result is announced, but I'm sure that doesn't refer to the "fully announce the vote to members" situation that you mention. See RONR(10th ed.), Page 395.

[Tim Wynn]

Scott, let's clarify the flow of "when".

Are you saying the following is what happened?

1. At 8:05, a motion is moved and seconded, and ultimately voted on. The motion fails.

2. At 9:12, the same motion (or a motion of similar intent or similar wording) is moved and seconded, and ultimately voted on. The motion passes.

Q. Is that a match for your scenario?

If that is a match for your scenario, then the motion stands as adopted.

A rejected motion can be adopted later.

(Vice versa is not possible, or rather, to accomplish the reverse would require a slight change in flow.)

It almost sounds like you're saying an assembly can be asked to decide the same question twice during one session... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Josh Martin]

It almost sounds like you're saying an assembly can be asked to decide the same question twice during one session... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I think Mr. Goldsworthy is simply saying that the situation he describes would not cause a continuing breach.

[Tim Wynn]

I think Mr. Goldsworthy is simply saying that the situation he describes would not cause a continuing breach.

... and yet, when Mr. Elsman made the point, he didn't leave room for the inference.

[Gary c Tesser]

... and yet, when Mr. Elsman made the point, he didn't leave room for the inference.

Mr Elsman eats steak and eggs off the sidewalk. Mr Goldsworthy is in California. What do you expect?

[Tim Wynn]

Mr Elsman eats steak and eggs off the sidewalk. Mr Goldsworthy is in California. What do you expect?

California? oh. That's as bad as New York.

[hmtcastle]

That's as bad as New York.

Hey! Let's have a little decorum here.

[Tim Wynn]

Hey! Let's have a little decorum here.

Okay, okay... it's almost as bad as New York.

[Rob Elsman]

... and yet, when Mr. Elsman made the point, he didn't leave room for the inference.

Well, the principle involved is on p. 326, ll. 3-16. But, as noted there, there are ways under the rules to bring a previously-adopted motion back before the assembly, so I would opine that the breach that is involved in this situation is not a "continuing breach", and a Point of Order would have had to have been made before the question was stated by the chair.