a second vote on a previously voted issue.

[Guest Leon]

A vote took place about a proposal for the continuation of a program review. Program reviews take place every five year. A positive vote means that the program has been given a five-year continuance. The report examine by the committee has plenty of time to review the contents of the program being reviewed. The original vote in question yielded a result for continuance.

A month later, the committee was asked to vote again on the same program review. The new recommendation from the executive committee was to place the program on 'probation.' The reason given was that after the initial vote, new data was put forth leading the executive committee to revise the original recommendation of 'continuance.'

I would like to know the appropriateness of this procedure. It seems to me that once the vote took place that the vote should stand. The reason I feel this way is because the committee had every opportunity to ask for any and all data ahead of their recommendation. The committee’s document clearly lists what is expected of the program being reviewed. If the program members supply data that is originally accepted by the main committee, and the vote is for continuance, it seems to me that it is illegal to suddenly ask for more data that eventually led to a second vote.

Please advice.

Thank you.

[George Mervosh]

You haven't described anything improper under the rules in Robert's Rules.