Tabled Items

[Guest Lance]

When an item is tabled because of a tie - can it be brought back up again that same night to be voted on? This happened at my meeting tonight, after 3 people that voted against it left.

[Josh Martin]

When an item is tabled because of a tie - can it be brought back up again that same night to be voted on?

Well, this was handled improperly, but the answer is yes (and the answer would be yes even if it was handled properly). For future reference, however, when the vote on a motion is tied, the motion fails because it did not receive a majority. It is neither necessary nor proper to lay it on the table. The motion could, however, be reconsidered by majority vote. So long as a quorum was still present after the three members left, what happened was rather sloppy, but valid.

[Guest Lance]

My next question is this - if the person that brought it back up benifits from it is then a conflict of interst and should not have voted for it?

[paulmcclintock]

Well, this was handled improperly, but the answer is yes (and the answer would be yes even if it was handled properly). For future reference, however, when the vote on a motion is tied, the motion fails because it did not receive a majority. It is neither necessary nor proper to lay it on the table. The motion could, however, be reconsidered by majority vote. So long as a quorum was still present after the three members left, what happened was rather sloppy, but valid.

Good answer, assuming (as is reasonable) that the "item" was an ordinary main motion. But suppose the item was to fill the vacancy in the treasurer position. And the vote was 10 for A and 10 for B, so they revoted and got 10-10, and revoted and got 10-10. So someone knowing there were other things to decide moved to lay the election on the table, which is adopted. Later in the meeting 3 no-votes left. Still have a quorum. A yes-vote moves to take from the table the election. The vote to "take" passes. Election vote now has 10 for A, and 7 for B, so A is elected.

[tctheatc]

My next question is this - if the person that brought it back up benifits from it is then a conflict of interst and should not have voted for it?

If that person would benefit from the question's passing, is it safe to say that person voted IN FAVOR of the question? Because if that is so, that person cannot move to have it reconsidered. Only someone from the prevailing side (which would be those who voted against, as it failed with a tie) could move for reconsideration. That he may benefit from it is beside the point.

[Gary Novosielski]

My next question is this - if the person that brought it back up ben[e]fits from it is then a conflict of inter[e]st and should not have voted for it?

RONR has no restrictions on voting on a motion because of a "conflict of interest". The words do not appear in RONR.

The only time RONR says that someone should not vote is when that person benefits from the motion and nobody else does. But if the motion benefits you and three other people, or a hundred other people, or one other person, then it's fine and dandy.

But note that even so, the word is should, not must. Nobody can be compelled to abstain, even if it would be wrong not to.

[Josh Martin]

My next question is this - if the person that brought it back up benifits from it is then a conflict of interst and should not have voted for it?

As tctheatc points out, this would make a slight difference at the time if you had handled the situation properly, but it makes less difference the way you handled it, and it makes no difference now. Any member may make the motion to Take from the Table. The member should not have voted for it but you can't actually stop him from doing so. You can take disciplinary action against him if you want, but this doesn't change the validity of what was adopted.

Your only recourse with regard to the motion itself is a motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted, assuming the motion has not yet been carried out (and will not be carried out before the next meeting). Either motion requires a 2/3 vote, vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice.

[Guest Lance]

What I was told (I was one of the members that left) that because there wasn't a motion to table this item is why it was brought back up. From reading the replies to this topic only someone that voted against it could move for reconsideration? The person that brought it back up for reconsideration voted for it the first time. As for the "conflict of interest" it is stated in our State Legislation for elected officals to remove themselves from items that involve family members, and this involves their family. We are a 15 member board, there was only 12 members there last night and after 3 left there was nine.

[Josh Martin]

From reading the replies to this topic only someone that voted against it could move for reconsideration? The person that brought it back up for reconsideration voted for it the first time.

That is correct. There is still no continuing breach, at least as far as RONR is concerned. A Point of Order would have needed to be raised at the time.

As for the "conflict of interest" it is stated in our State Legislation for elected officals to remove themselves from items that involve family members, and this involves their family.

Well, this certainly strengthens the case for disciplinary action. If the state law you mention actually deprives a member of the right to vote and the member's vote affected the result, then you could raise a Point of Order that the action was null and void. Otherwise, there's still no continuing breach.