Motion to Reconsider

[Guest Henry Carr]

A motion was made at a board meeting today to approve a contract. There were six (6) board members present and quorum (5). Three (3) board members voted in favor of the contract; three (3) board members did not vote and stated so on the record, "not voting". Which side, if any, at the same board meeting has the right to make a motion to reconsider. Usually, it is a member of the winning side. Actually the winning side, either way, needed four (4) votes (majority).

There was another discussion regarding a tie and a motion to reconsider was made at a subsequent meeting. The question was which side had the right to make a motion to reconsider. (Motions to reconsider must be made at the same board meeting). How about if we changed the facts and that the motion to reconsider was made at the same original board meeting, not a week later. What should be the result.

[Tim Wynn]

A motion was made at a board meeting today to approve a contract. There were six (6) board members present and quorum (5). Three (3) board members voted in favor of the contract; three (3) board members did not vote and stated so on the record, "not voting". Which side, if any, at the same board meeting has the right to make a motion to reconsider.

The three (3) who voted in (N) favor of the motion.

Usually, it is a member of the winning side. Actually the winning side, either way, needed four (4) votes (majority).

The motioned passed 3-0. Abstentions don't count.

There was another discussion regarding a tie and a motion to reconsider was made at a subsequent meeting. The question was which side had the right to make a motion to reconsider. (Motions to reconsider must be made at the same board meeting). How about if we changed the facts and that the motion to reconsider was made at the same original board meeting, not a week later. What should be the result.

If you have a tie (which you didn't), the motion is lost, so those who voted against it are on the prevailing side.

[Gary Novosielski]

Actually the winning side, either way, needed four (4) votes (majority).

No, the winning side merely needed more Yes votes than No votes. The three Yes votes were the winning side.

Who said you needed four votes? Three votes were cast, of which three were Yes votes. That's certainly a majority. In fact it was unanimous.

[David A Foulkes]

I took it that our Guest considers the majority vote to be a majority of the members (present), and as there were six (6) present, that meant four (4) votes. Of course, unless anything in bylaws states all votes are of entire membership, or of members present, we know that in the case of this vote, three (3) voting and three (3) abstaining, a majority vote would be two (2).

As for the quorum of five (5), that sound more like a bylaw thing than our RONR default of majority of members, which in this case would have been only four (4). Only our Guest can tell us for sure.

Henry Carr, are you there?

[Venable]

I took it that our Guest considers the majority vote to be a majority of the members (present), and as there were six (6) present, that meant four (4) votes. Of course, unless anything in bylaws states all votes are of entire membership, or of members present, we know that in the case of this vote, three (3) voting and three (3) abstaining, a majority vote would be two (2).

As for the quorum of five (5), that sound more like a bylaw thing than our RONR default of majority of members, which in this case would have been only four (4). Only our Guest can tell us for sure.

Henry Carr, are you there?

You entirely correct. The bylaws spells out that motions are passed by a majority of board members present. And our enabling statute sets a quorum as five (5) members. In such case is there a "winning side" who has the right to make a motion for reconsideration. You captured and understood my point and qhy I added the additional information.

[Venable]

No, the winning side merely needed more Yes votes than No votes. The three Yes votes were the winning side.

Who said you needed four votes? Three votes were cast, of which three were Yes votes. That's certainly a majority. In fact it was unanimous.

Our bylaws state that motions can only be passed by a majority of those present. This is why I said it would have taken 4 votes for the measure to pass.

[Gary Novosielski]

Our bylaws state that motions can only be passed by a majority of those present. This is why I said it would have taken 4 votes for the measure to pass.

Then you have to follow your bylaws (or amend them so they make passing things possible). If there are not sufficient votes to pass a motion, then the motion fails. It may be renewed at the next session.

The motion to Reconsider isn't going to be of much use to you in this specific case where three voted Yes and everyone else abstained. The problem your bylaws have created here is that if a motion fails with 3 votes in favor and none opposed, then nobody voted on the prevailing side.

[Matt Schafer]

The motion to Reconsider isn't going to be of much use to you in this specific case where three voted Yes and everyone else abstained. The problem your bylaws have created here is that if a motion fails with 3 votes in favor and none opposed, then nobody voted on the prevailing side.

Hmm. Something doesn't seem right here. Is it really accurate to say that nobody voted on the prevailing side? When a vote is taken, there are two possible outcomes: either the motion is adopted, or it's lost. (Since I'm one of the more inexperienced folks around here, I'm sure there are rare situations where something else may happen, such as a point of order or somesuch. But this is true for almost all cases.) If your action contributed to the final adoption or losing of the motion, then it seems to me that you ought to be able to move to Reconsider.

For a majority vote, that means you must actually vote; abstaining doesn't count (unless the vote is in a committee). I think we all understand this one.

For a majority of the members present, however, it's entirely plausible that abstentions could cause the motion to be lost without any member actually voting no. Why can't one of these members move to Reconsider?

Are we also arguing that a vote that requires a majority of the entire membership can't be reconsidered by a member who abstained when the motion is lost? Just because RONR doesn't talk about votes that require a majority of those present, shouldn't also mean that we can't figure out what happens when the vote is a majority of the membership, which is a type of vote that RONR uses occasionally.

I just can't get my head wrapped around the argument that when a vote is taken, it is possible for no one to be on the prevailing side. Help me in my feeble understanding!

[Tim Wynn]

For a majority of the members present, however, it's entirely plausible that abstentions could cause the motion to be lost without any member actually voting no. Why can't one of these members move to Reconsider?

I'm hoping that highlighting some of the words will sway your opinion. As you know, Reconsider can only be moved by one who voted on the prevailing side.

I just can't get my head wrapped around the argument that when a vote is taken, it is possible for no one to be on the prevailing side. Help me in my feeble understanding!

Oh, you can be on the prevailing side without voting or even without attending. You just cannot have voted on the prevailing side without having voted.

Abstain means to not vote at all. In certain circumstances, an abstention has the same effect as a negative vote, but that doesn't make it a vote.

In the case of unanimous consent, not objecting has the same effect as an affirmative vote, but it's not a vote, either, though all members present are eligible to move to Reconsider, by way of a special provision.

The reason for the rule (restricting who can make the motion) is given on page 305, l. 10-15, and that reason wouldn't apply to the situation you describe, but the rule still applies. In fact, in many cases where the rule applies, the reason doesn't.

As for any harm being done by adjusting the rule to allow Reconsider to be moved by those whose abstentions caused a motion to be lost... I'll give it some thought. RONR calls such a voting requirement "undesirable," since it denies members the right to maintain a neutral position (p.390). I can understand the authorship team not wanting to adapt the rules to accommodate a practice that is undesirable.

[Matt Schafer]

Oh, you can be on the prevailing side without voting or even without attending. You just cannot have voted on the prevailing side without having voted.

Yes, absolutely. Good point. The passage on p. 304, l. 30-33 is very clear in its language and example.

The reason for the rule (restricting who can make the motion) is given on page 305, l. 10-15, and that reason wouldn't apply to the situation you describe, but the rule still applies. In fact, in many cases where the rule applies, the reason doesn't.

Rules can be persnickety like that. Unfortunately, once the rule is adopted, it must be applied as written, not as you originally intended it to be.

As for any harm being done by adjusting the rule to allow Reconsider to be moved by those whose abstentions caused a motion to be lost... I'll give it some thought. RONR calls such a voting requirement "undesirable," since it denies members the right to maintain a neutral position (p.390). I can understand the authorship team not wanting to adapt the rules to accommodate a practice that is undesirable.

I agree that clarifying rules for undesirable practices makes it easier for people to justify using those undesirables, so let me try to articulate a situation that uses a practice that RONR prescribes in some circumstances. There are a few things that can be adopted by a vote of a majority of the entire membership. Let's say that a club has more than a majority of its members present for a meeting where such a vote will take place. Exactly half of the entire membership votes in the affirmative, and three members abstain. One of them abstained because she just wasn't sure, based on the debate and information at hand, whether she supported the motion or not. The result of the vote is announced. During a recess (Reconsider can still be moved later in the same meeting after a recess, right?), another member convinces her that she should vote for the motion. She didn't vote against the motion, so under the rule, she would not have the right to move to Reconsider [p. 304, l. 30-33]. I agree that the effect of her abstention was the same as a vote against the motion (even though it wasn't a vote), but it still seems to me that she should have the opportunity to move to Reconsider because the effect is the same.

I admit that for motions that specify a voting threshold of a majority of the entire membership, there is usually another voting threshold that will also be sufficient (for example, a two-thirds vote, or a majority vote with notice, depending on the motion) -- except for Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes -- and that may complicate my example, but that's the best I can come up with right now. I'll also concede that a vote of a majority of the entire membership is not the same as a vote of a majority of the members present, but it seems that the concept should apply to both with regard to those who are present and abstain.

I gotta say, when I read RONR cover-to-cover, the section on Reconsider was one of the toughest to get through. Eventually, I had to resign myself to not fully understanding it, just so that I could move on. In practice, do motions to Reconsider occur very frequently?

[Matt Schafer]

While Mr. Wynn and I have our side discussion, I want to make sure that all of Mr. Carr's questions are being addressed. It appears that this one may have slipped through the cracks:

There was another discussion regarding a tie and a motion to reconsider was made at a subsequent meeting. The question was which side had the right to make a motion to reconsider. (Motions to reconsider must be made at the same board meeting).

The motion to Reconsider must be made at the same meeting the vote occurred. For a typical board, if at one meeting a vote is taken and an adjourned meeting is set (the session is then extended to that adjourned meeting), then the motion to Reconsider that vote may also be made at the first adjourned meeting after the one where the vote was taken. Past these time limits, the motion to Reconsider is not in order and should be ruled as such by the chair.

[hmtcastle]

it still seems to me that she should have the opportunity to move to Reconsider because the effect is the same.

it seems that the concept should apply to both with regard to those who are present and abstain.

Eventually, I had to resign myself to not fully understanding it

There is a difference between not understanding something and not agreeing with it. What you think should be the case (that something having the same effect as a vote should be considered a vote) is clearly not the case. You can wait for the 11th Edition but I suspect you will be disappointed. Again.

[Dan Honemann]

Among those who worry about such things, I suspect that the prevailing preference would be to restrict, rather than to expand, the instances in which one may properly make a motion to Reconsider. However, if this tide should turn, perhaps a rule similar to the rule in effect in committees (p. 304, l. 33, to p. 305, l. 1) may some day be made applicable to deliberative assemblies (but I wouldn't bet on it happening).

[Josh Martin]

I agree that clarifying rules for undesirable practices makes it easier for people to justify using those undesirables, so let me try to articulate a situation that uses a practice that RONR prescribes in some circumstances. There are a few things that can be adopted by a vote of a majority of the entire membership. Let's say that a club has more than a majority of its members present for a meeting where such a vote will take place. Exactly half of the entire membership votes in the affirmative, and three members abstain. One of them abstained because she just wasn't sure, based on the debate and information at hand, whether she supported the motion or not. The result of the vote is announced. During a recess (Reconsider can still be moved later in the same meeting after a recess, right?), another member convinces her that she should vote for the motion. She didn't vote against the motion, so under the rule, she would not have the right to move to Reconsider [p. 304, l. 30-33]. I agree that the effect of her abstention was the same as a vote against the motion (even though it wasn't a vote), but it still seems to me that she should have the opportunity to move to Reconsider because the effect is the same.

Yeah, but with such an overwhelming majority in favor of the motion, the assembly could just suspend the rules in order to bring up the motion again.

[Gary Novosielski]

Hmm. Something doesn't seem right here. Is it really accurate to say that nobody voted on the prevailing side? When a vote is taken, there are two possible outcomes: either the motion is adopted, or it's lost.

Yes, there are two possible outcomes but there are three possible actions when the question is put: you can vote in favor, you can vote opposed, or you can abstain from voting at all.

In this case the negative prevailed yet nobody voted in the negative. This is one reason why a voting requirement like "majority of those present" is often frowned upon. Remember, it was your bylaws and not the rule in RONR that got you into this fix. If you had been using majority voting the outcome would have been different. Whether it would have been better I can't say.

But remember you're not really in a fix, since you (or anyone) can renew the motion at the next meeting. It's not that you can't reach the topic, it's just that you can't reach it via the Motion to Reconsider which, frankly, no sane person would pick as his first choice anyway.

P.S. In fact, isn't there already a rule that Reconsider is out of order if there's another (saner) way the question can be reached? If there isn't, there oughta be.

[Tim Wynn]

... the Motion to Reconsider which, frankly, no sane person would pick as his first choice anyway.

I can't go along with that statement. (However, I haven't had a sanity test, lately.)

[Tim Wynn]

P.S. In fact, isn't there already a rule that Reconsider is out of order if there's another (saner) way the question can be reached? If there isn't, there oughta be.

p. 307, l. 29 - 308, l. 2. Sanity is not mentioned.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Yes, there are two possible outcomes but there are three possible actions when the question is put: you can vote in favor, you can vote opposed, or you can abstain from voting at all.

Except that when the question is put on a motion that requires a vote of a majority of the members present, the chair does not even call for the negative vote, since it is "intrinsically irrelevant". See RONR 10th ed., pp. 43, 390.

[Gary Novosielski]

Except that when the question is put on a motion that requires a vote of a majority of the members present, the chair does not even call for the negative vote, since it is "intrinsically irrelevant". See RONR 10th ed., pp. 43, 390.

Well, then we've got an inconsistency.

For one thing, that prevents people from exercising their right to abstain, and for another it implies that a negative vote can never be reconsidered.

Is there some weird footnote on To Reconsider that we're missing here?

[Josh Martin]

Well, then we've got an inconsistency.

For one thing, that prevents people from exercising their right to abstain, and for another it implies that a negative vote can never be reconsidered.

Is there some weird footnote on To Reconsider that we're missing here?

Well, RONR acknowledges that a requirement of a majority of the members present denies members the right to maintain a neutral position by abstaining. It is the vote requirement that deprives members of this right - failing to call for the negative vote is simply an acknowledgment of this fact. As for the complications of Reconsider, RONR spends little time on footnotes to clear up the problems of practices it advises against.

I'm not sure I agree with Mr. Gerber's interpretation of the cited pages, as the example provided is speaking of an instance in which the vote requirement is "a vote of one fifth of the members present" and the number who have responded in the affirmative is clearly greater than that number. It seems a stretch to suggest that the chair should not call for the negative vote when the vote requirement is a vote of a majority of the members present. All the same, I don't think it's surprising that adopting a practice RONR advises against will result in unintended consequences.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, RONR acknowledges that a requirement of a majority of the members present denies members the right to maintain a neutral position by abstaining. It is the vote requirement that deprives members of this right - failing to call for the negative vote is simply an acknowledgment of this fact. As for the complications of Reconsider, RONR spends little time on footnotes to clear up the problems of practices it advises against.

I'm not sure I agree with Mr. Gerber's interpretation of the cited pages, as the example provided is speaking of an instance in which the vote requirement is a vote requirement of "a vote of one fifth of the members present" and the number who have responded in the affirmative is clearly greater than that number. It seems a stretch to suggest that the chair should not call for the negative vote when the vote requirement is a vote of a majority of the members present. All the same, I don't think it's surprising that adopting a practice RONR advises against will result in unintended consequences.

And in the example, if the number is clearly sufficient the motion passes, which means that there are voters on the prevailing side. The glitch occurs when the number in the affirmative is clearly insufficient, and the motion fails with no No votes.

[Matt Schafer]

It seems a stretch to suggest that the chair should not call for the negative vote when the vote requirement is a vote of a majority of the members present.

Especially since the chair is required to take the negative vote. RONR (10th ed.), p. 43, l. 15-16.

I agree with Mr. Martin that the exception in l. 20-25 doesn't apply to taking a vote that requires a majority of those present. The requirement in p. 390, l. 21-24 that the chair must count those in attendance immediately after taking the affirmative vote does not preclude the chair from then taking the negative vote.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Especially since the chair is required to take the negative vote. RONR (10th ed.), p. 43, l. 15-16.

I agree with Mr. Martin that the exception in l. 20-25 doesn't apply to taking a vote that requires a majority of those present. The requirement in p. 390, l. 21-24 that the chair must count those in attendance immediately after taking the affirmative vote does not preclude the chair from then taking the negative vote.

So, after the chair takes the affirmative vote and counts the number of members present, he should take the negative vote even though it is intrinsically irrelevant? I don't think so.

[Tim Wynn]

So, after the chair takes the affirmative vote and counts the number of members present, he should take the negative vote even though it is intrinsically irrelevant? I don't think so.

P. 43, l. 20-25 clearly creates an exception to the rule that the chair must call for the negative vote, and this exception applies to cases where the negative vote is intrinsically irrelevant. (If a vote based on the members present receives enough in the affirmative to adopt the motion, the negative is irrelevant, yet if the motion will be lost, it becomes relevant who voted in the negative, for the sake of eligibility to move to reconsider, which is what this whole topic is about.)

However, I know of no rule in RONR that prohibits the chair from calling for the negative vote.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Especially since the chair is required to take the negative vote. RONR (10th ed.), p. 43, l. 15-16.

I agree with Mr. Martin that the exception in l. 20-25 doesn't apply to taking a vote that requires a majority of those present.

The requirement in p. 390, l. 21-24 that the chair must count those in attendance immediately after taking the affirmative vote does not preclude the chair from then taking the negative vote.

... does not preclude the chair from then taking the negative vote.

(excerpt, page 390)

Voting requirements based on the number of members

present--a majority of those present, two thirds of those

present, etc.--while possible, are generally undesirable.

Since an abstention in such cases has the same effect as a

negative vote, these bases deny members the right to

maintain a neutral position by abstaining. For the same

reason, members present who fail to vote through indif-

ference rather than through deliberate neutrality may af-

fect the result negatively. When such a vote is required,

however, the chair must count those present immediately

after the affirmative vote is taken, before any change can

take place in attendance (see p. 43, l. 25-30).[/

If page 390 doesn't include the taking of the negative vote (and it doesn't) then the chair ought not violate the plain rule of page 390.

The negative vote is irrelevant. It is truly dilatory.

If you were to count the negative, then to obey page 390, your chair would have to:

(a.) prompt for the affirmative vote.

(b.) count the affirmative vote.

(c.) count (silently) all those members who are present.

(d.) prompt for the negative vote.

(e.) count the negative vote.

If that ain't redundant . . .