Incompleted vote

[jclark]

At a school board meeting, the Board President called for a motion on an agenda item. The motion was made and seconded. After a short discussion, the President called for a vote. (There are seven members on the board and all were present) She asked for all in favor to raise their hand. Two members plus the board president raised their hand. The Board president then, being surprised at the lack of response, said she had to recess the meeting and call the board attorney. She never asked for those opposed to the motion to raise their hands. She then left the room and called the attorney and further discussed the issue with the board member that made the motion. This discussion occured outside of the board room where no other board members could hear. The board president returned and said the attorney suggested tabling the item and the Board president than asked the board member to rescind the motion. Was all of this done correctly?

[George Mervosh]

No.

" Interruptions during the taking of a vote are permitted only before any member has actually voted, unless, as sometimes occurs in ballot voting, other business is being transacted during voting or tabulating. " RONR, p. 408

[Robert B Fish]

However, the effect of what happened stands as no timely point of order was raised.

The board members opposed to the action should have acted in a timely manner.

-Bob

[Tim Wynn]

At a school board meeting, the Board President called for a motion on an agenda item.

The president shouldn't be calling for motions.

The motion was made and seconded. After a short discussion, the President called for a vote.

The president puts the question to a vote when debate appears to have closed, after making it clear exactly what is to be voted on. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 42, l. 26-31. The president cannot arbitrarily end debate before this time.

(There are seven members on the board and all were present) She asked for all in favor to raise their hand. Two members plus the board president raised their hand. The Board president then, being surprised at the lack of response, said she had to recess the meeting and call the board attorney.

1. The president cannot order a recess, except by consent of the assembly.

2. A vote cannot be interrupted once voting has begun. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 408, l. 24-29.

3. The president doesn't need to be calling anyone, in reference to her duties as the presiding officer. She has been tasked with presiding and deciding questions of procedure. If she is in doubt, she can turn the question over to the assembly.

She never asked for those opposed to the motion to raise their hands.

She must call for the negative vote. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 43, l. 15-20.

She then left the room and called the attorney and further discussed the issue with the board member that made the motion. This discussion occured outside of the board room where no other board members could hear.

I don't like the idea of asking a nonmember for advice in presiding.

The board president returned and said the attorney suggested tabling the item

This was the wrong advice. The motion to Lay the Table is very useful but rarely ever in order. I compare it to a snake-bite kit. It's indispensible when you need it, but it's hardly ever needed.

and the Board president than asked the board member to rescind the motion.

That's not a decision for the member to make. Only the assembly can rescind a motion that the assembly adopted. However, it doesn't sound like this motion was ever adopted, since the negative vote wasn't called for and the result wasn't announced.

Was all of this done correctly?

I don't see that any of this was done correctly.

[Josh Martin]

Was all of this done correctly?

No. I think Mr. Wynn covered all the reasons why not. The chair should have waited until after the vote was over and suggested a motion to Reconsider if she wished to pursue the matter. Or she could have just brought it up at the next meeting, since a defeated motion may be renewed at the next meeting. At any rate, no continuing breach occurred and nothing was adopted, so I wouldn't worry about it until the motion comes up again.

The president shouldn't be calling for motions.

This seems to be a small board. In such a case, the President can participate as fully as any other member.

3. The president doesn't need to be calling anyone, in reference to her duties as the presiding officer. She has been tasked with presiding and deciding questions of procedure. If she is in doubt, she can turn the question over to the assembly.

I'm not sure we should so quickly dismiss the chair's decision to call a lawyer (although her timing was poor). I don't know the details of the motion, but it is entirely possible there were legal considerations. The assembly and the chair may not be equipped to answer such questions themselves.

I don't like the idea of asking a nonmember for advice in presiding.

I would be careful with such broad statements. The parliamentarian of an assembly is typically a nonmember.

[Tim Wynn]

This seems to be a small board. In such a case, the President can participate as fully as any other member.

Such participation should be by making a motion, not by calling for a motion.

I'm not sure we should so quickly dismiss the chair's decision to call a lawyer (although her timing was poor). I don't know the details of the motion, but it is entirely possible there were legal considerations. The assembly and the chair may not be equipped to answer such questions themselves.

If the motion was "That we rob a bank," the responsibility of the president, from a parliamentary sense, is to put it to a vote, not to get outside opinions as to the legality.

I would be careful with such broad statements. The parliamentarian of an assembly is typically a nonmember.

You're right; the statement is too broad. It was not my intention to impugn nonmembers, just to point out that the assembly, which has the final say on matters of procedure, is right in the room and should handle the matter. It would be equally as wrong for the president to stop a meeting in such a way to call a parliamentarian... or even a member.

[Josh Martin]

If the motion was "That we rob a bank," the responsibility of the president, from a parliamentary sense, is to put it to a vote, not to get outside opinions as to the legality.

I doubt the questions of legality (if any) were as simple as that. If the President believed there was a possibility that the assembly would be subject to legal action as a result of a decision, I certainly would not want the President to rule the motion out of order, but I don't think I'd want her to twiddle her thumbs and keep that information to herself either. I agree that this particular chair went about it the wrong way, but I wouldn't fault a President who suggested that the association consult a lawyer before proceeding (although the timing would have needed to be better in this case).

In summary, I don't think it was necessarily wrong of the chair to consult a lawyer, I just think she went about it the wrong way.

You're right; the statement is too broad. It was not my intention to impugn nonmembers, just to point out that the assembly, which has the final say on matters of procedure, is right in the room and should handle the matter. It would be equally as wrong for the president to stop a meeting in such a way to call a parliamentarian... or even a member.

The procedure as it occurred (a recess in the middle of a vote) was improper, but there are times when it is appropriate for the chair to interrupt a meeting to consult the parliamentarian. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 243, lines 3-6)

[Rob Elsman]

At a school board meeting, the Board President called for a motion on an agenda item. The motion was made and seconded. After a short discussion, the President called for a vote. (There are seven members on the board and all were present) She asked for all in favor to raise their hand. Two members plus the board president raised their hand. The Board president then, being surprised at the lack of response, said she had to recess the meeting and call the board attorney. She never asked for those opposed to the motion to raise their hands. She then left the room and called the attorney and further discussed the issue with the board member that made the motion. This discussion occured outside of the board room where no other board members could hear. The board president returned and said the attorney suggested tabling the item and the Board president than asked the board member to rescind the motion. Was all of this done correctly?

From the point the president "...called for a vote..." onward, nothing at all went correctly. Nevertheless, the other board members seem to have sat there, silent like sheep, so they have no one but themselves to blame for all that followed.

[Gary Novosielski]

If the President believed there was a possibility that the assembly would be subject to legal action as a result of a decision, I certainly would not want the President to rule the motion out of order, but I don't think I'd want her to twiddle her thumbs and keep that information to herself either. I agree that this particular chair went about it the wrong way, but I wouldn't fault a President who suggested that the association consult a lawyer before proceeding (although the timing would have needed to be better in this case).

Yes, but what went wrong here was that the president didn't consider it a legal matter until it looked like the motion was about to be defeated.

If she thought it was a legal matter, she should have known that as soon as the motion was stated, and laid out the salient factors as she understood them, or admitted that she was in doubt on the legality, and proposed (in this small board) that the motion be Postponed until legal advice could be sought. But she apparently wanted it passed, and mistakenly overestimated the support for it.

She was clearly caught short by the unexpected outcome, got spooked, and ran to the phone in the middle of a vote. That's poor leadership. According to RONR once a vote starts, it must be completed, of course. But it's also hard to fathom what the great problem would be. Since the motion was about to fail, the status quo would persist, and if that's a legal problem now, then it probably already was. Whatever she did, she did not manage to get it passed, so it would seem that whatever legal trouble she contemplated, it's heeeeeere

Another possibility is that this president, like some I've seen, uses the lawyer as a parliamentarian/strategist/adviser, and was just trying to see if there was some hail-mary play that would salvage it. I question the wisdom of that, but I've already piled up enough conjecture to top the snowdrifts outside, so I'll leave it there for now.

[Gary Novosielski]

From the point the president "...called for a vote..." onward, nothing at all went correctly. Nevertheless, the other board members seem to have sat there, silent like sheep, so they have no one but themselves to blame for all that followed.

Yes, as always, the rules don't enforce themselves.

The instant she failed to call for the negative vote, there should have been a chorus of Point of Order! in unison from the rest of the board.

Same thing when she unilaterally recessed the meeting.

[Rob Elsman]

Yes, as always, the rules don't enforce themselves.

The instant she failed to call for the negative vote, there should have been a chorus of Point of Order! in unison from the rest of the board.

Same thing when she unilaterally recessed the meeting.

If "...called for a vote..." means that the president moved the Previous Question, she fell off the horse right there, since Previous Question is generally not in order in small boards. RONR (10th ed.), p. 470, ll. 28-30.

[Gary Novosielski]

If "...called for a vote..." means that the president moved the Previous Question, she fell off the horse right there, since Previous Question is generally not in order in small boards. RONR (10th ed.), p. 470, ll. 28-30.

Well, I was giving her the benefit of the doubt that she simply put the question--well, half of it.

[Rob Elsman]

Well, I was giving her the benefit of the doubt that she simply put the question--well, half of it.

I think that's a mistake. I'll bet my morning donuts that she tried to close the debate. Nevertheless, everybody else seems to have sat there completely passively.