A vote that was nullified:

[Guest Kodos]

Our organization has a bylaw that says that: "Major changes to the charter receive a first reading and may not be voted upon until the next meeting. Roberts Rules of Order is followed."

At our last meeting, a motion to change the charter was made, seconded, and voted upon (passed) -- all at the same meeting.

This is in violation of our bylaws, so a Point of Order will be made at the next meeting, and I assume that the Point of Order will be upheld.

We'd like to have the have the motion voted on again (legally, this time) immediately after the Point of Order is adjudicated.

So what's next?

If the Point of Order is upheld, does this nullify only the vote? Or does it nullify the entire motion?

In other words, to have the motion taken up for a legal vote at the upcoming meeting do we need to make the motion again (and give prior notice in writing to meet the bylaw requirement for a "first reading")?

Or is the motion considered to be still on the floor from the last meeting, and can thus be voted on as "old business" (without prior notice)?

-- Kodos

[George Mervosh]

You might have a bigger problem (maybe no problem) if the chair, and those that were there at last meeting don't view what was done as "major".

[Guest Kodos]

You might have a bigger problem (maybe no problem) if the chair, and those that were there at last meeting don't view what was done as "major".

True. But let's assume that the Point of Order is upheld. Is the entire motion nullified? Or is only the vote nullified, with the motion remaining on the floor from the previous meeting?

[Guest Kodos]

I should add that this isn't an "us versus them" scenario. Everyone wants to make sure that the charter was changed legally. And it seems that it wasn't. So we need to do it again. The question is.... how?

[Trina]

Our organization has a bylaw that says that: "Major changes to the charter receive a first reading and may not be voted upon until the next meeting. Roberts Rules of Order is followed."

At our last meeting, a motion to change the charter was made, seconded, and voted upon (passed) -- all at the same meeting.

This is in violation of our bylaws, so a Point of Order will be made at the next meeting, and I assume that the Point of Order will be upheld.

We'd like to have the have the motion voted on again (legally, this time) immediately after the Point of Order is adjudicated.

So what's next?

If the Point of Order is upheld, does this nullify only the vote? Or does it nullify the entire motion?

In other words, to have the motion taken up for a legal vote at the upcoming meeting do we need to make the motion again (and give prior notice in writing to meet the bylaw requirement for a "first reading")?

Or is the motion considered to be still on the floor from the last meeting, and can thus be voted on as "old business" (without prior notice)?

-- Kodos

Strictly speaking, the action (which might be) found null and void seems to be the vote. There doesn't seem to have been anything wrong with the making (reading) of the motion. However, it's hard for me to see that notice requirements are being fairly met if you go ahead and vote again right away -- absent members wouldn't know that the motion will be voted on (again) at this meeting, since they might quite reasonably assume that the motion was disposed of when the vote was taken at the last meeting. I'm curious what Mr. Mervosh (and others) will say in response to your question.

[Guest Kodos]

It's hard for me to see that notice requirements are being fairly met if you go ahead and vote again right away -- absent members wouldn't know that the motion will be voted on (again) at this meeting, since they might quite reasonably assume that the motion was disposed of when the vote was taken at the last meeting.

In the call of meeting, we would notify members that the motion might be voted on again, due to what may have been a violation of the bylaws. And the original motion would be attached to the call of meeting.

[George Mervosh]

I'm curious what Mr. Mervosh (and others) will say in response to your question.

I'm not trying to be coy, Trina, but here is what I've gotten out Kodos so far:

1) They have a customized and somewhat convaluted method of amending their bylaws that doesn't mirror RONR.

2) Because of #1, there's nothing to cite in RONR, to clarify his rule.

3) There may be a continuing breach of the rules for improper notice.

Therefore,at the next meeting he's either going to have to live with what happened, or start over and follow the rules of the society. It all depends on the rulings and possible appeals.

I wouldn't offer any other advice other than that.

[Guest Kodos]

1) They have a customized and somewhat convaluted method of amending their bylaws that doesn't mirror RONR.

Well, I'd say that the only difference is that (unlike RONR) we require that prior notice be given for a motion to amend something previously adopted, if the amendment is to the charter. In this case alone, we don't permit a 2/3 majority to pass a motion without prior notice.

But all other procedures should follow RONR.

[George Mervosh]

Well, I'd say that the only difference is that (unlike RONR) we require that prior notice be given for a motion to amend something previously adopted, if the amendment is to the charter. In this case alone, we don't permit a 2/3 majority to pass a motion without prior notice.

But all other procedures should follow RONR.

From what we've seen here, amendments to proposed amendments under your system reaks havoc, but I'll just stand by my earlier answer. I think your solution in your 12:42PM post will cause massive confusion.

[Trina]

I should add that this isn't an "us versus them" scenario. Everyone wants to make sure that the charter was changed legally. And it seems that it wasn't. So we need to do it again. The question is.... how?

In the call of meeting, we would notify members that the motion might be voted on again, due to what may have been a violation of the bylaws. And the original motion would be attached to the call of meeting.

From what we've seen here, amendments to proposed amendments under your system reaks havoc, but I'll just stand by my earlier answer. I think your solution in your 12:42PM post will cause massive confusion.

Kodos, why not start over, if the previous action is found to be null and void? Any harm in starting with the first reading step again -- more elapsed time, but is that actually a problem for the organization?

[Guest Kodos]

From what we've seen here, amendments to proposed amendments under your system reaks havoc, but I'll just stand by my earlier answer. I think your solution in your 12:42PM post will cause massive confusion.

I guess I'm more optimistic that the members will understand that a bylaw error was made, and we need to have -- as kids playing baseball sometimes say -- a "do-over."

Anyway, it's not an amendment to an amendment. The motion in question was a motion to amend something previously adopted (a motion to amend the charter). RONR requires a 2/3 majority if no previous notice was given.

Our bylaws require previous notice in the single and unique case of an amendment to the charter. That's the one and only exception to RONR, and it's intended to encourage serious forethought about changes to the charter before debate and voting are held. It's also intended to ensure that members are properly notified that an amendment to the charter is going to be proposed -- that a major amendment isn't going to be plopped on their lap (surprise! ) when they arrive for a meeting.

[Guest Kodos]

Kodos, why not start over, if the previous action is found to be null and void? Any harm in starting with the first reading step again -- more elapsed time, but is that actually a problem for the organization?

No harm, but this is already a busy meeting and so we were seeking to speed things along and follow RONR's corrective measures.