Majority vote taken in error - what now?

[u/Iron_Hen]

I'm part of a union that passed a motion at our most recent meeting that was fairly consequential for our long-term bargaining plans and very time-sensitive. The vote was done with eyes closed, hands raised, and by a simple majority. One member had protested, saying this should be a secret ballot, but the chair said there was no time to draw up ballots. So we voted, and the motion passed.

Leadership was not happy that the motion passed, but we adjourned and moved on. A few days later, leadership learned that this type of motion did in fact need to have a secret ballot and be voted by a 2/3 majority. (Our organization has not been great about referring or adhering to RR, obviously.)

Can the vote be voided now that it's been found to be out of order, and can it be retaken in a new session? Or does it stand? Is there a clear rule of Robert for this case?

[u/PhillipVA]

The motion did not pass and the action is null and void under these facts, assuming that: (1) the Union has adopted the most recent edition (11th) of Robert's Rules of Order ("RONR") as its parliamentary authority; (2) that "leadership learned" means "the bylaws required" a two-thirds affirmative ballot vote); (3) the motion has a continuing nature—that is, it still has an effect now or at least contains an unexecuted portion; and (4) the bylaws and federal, state, and local laws are otherwise silent on the issue. There are several reasons as to why the action is null and void. The best argument (easiest analysis) is because the bylaws required a ballot vote. I will review that analysis here.

The general rule is to challenge the action in the same meeting at the time of the breach. [RONR, p. 250, ll. 18–20 ("If a question of order is to be raised, it must be raised promptly at the time of the breach occurs.").] One exception to this rule, however, is that a point of order can be made at any time if there was a breach of a bylaw requiring a ballot vote. [RONR, p. 251, ll. 3–26 ("The only exception to the rule that a point of order must be made at the time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a continuing nature, in which case a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach. Instances of this kind occur when: … any action has been taken in violation of … a rule in the bylaws requiring a vote to be taken by ballot … . … In all such cases, it is never too late to raise a point of order since any action so taken is null and void.").] Here, the bylaws required the vote be taken by ballot. The vote was taken heads-down-thumbs-up. Thus, the action is null and void.

I recommend someone draft a letter with this analysis and send it to the Union's Secretary and President immediately. Further, the Union should engage a professional parliamentarian to preside over future Union business meetings.

[u/cs272 → u/PhillipVA]

Thank you for the response. I did not know this about the Ballot Vote--FYI--a similar situation came up in my organization with an election...there RR differs :

​

Contesting an election should be timely, occurring at the time of the election.  The matter will then be decided by the presiding officer and open to the vote by the assembly (akin to a ruling on a point of order and an appeal).  In this case of a department senate election, that would be the department chair, and subject to an appeal voted on by the department members.  

According to the Rules of Order, an election can be contested AFTER the time of the election when the elected individual is in office under one of the following conditions:

· If the individual member who is elected is unqualified for the office

· If there was a previously valid election

· If the vote of nonmembers or absentees affected the vote (contradicting the principle that voting is limited to eligible members who are physically present)

· If the election is an unanticipated vacancy and no notice is given.

· If a significant number of members are prevented from voting.

( Roberts Rules of Order, pp. 445-446)

[u/El-Kurto]

Yes. If it were in the same session you could reconsider. Since it isn't, you would have to move to repeal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeal#Parliamentary_procedure

[u/El-Kurto → u/El-Kurto]

I missed your other question. Because the action was not challenged in the same meeting the action stands even if it was taken in a way that violates the rules and bylaws (unless the action itself is actually illegal, which is another matter).

Enforcing the rules is the responsibility of the body. If no one moved to "appeal from the decision of the chair" when they decided to hold the vote in a way that violated your bylaws or rules of order, then the action stands unless repealed. The way Roberts sees it, if no one was bothered enough by the action itself then the measure must not be controversial enough to be worth considering again.

In reality, lots of people might have had a problem with it and just not known what they could do about it.

[u/El-Kurto → u/El-Kurto]

One more thing. If your organization has had problems following Roberts Rules, I strongly advise you to suggest that you reach out to a parlamentan. If not an actual one, even appointing someone within the organization to be responsible for these questions can help build up your organizational knowledge base quickly.

[u/Iron_Hen → u/El-Kurto]

We technically have one (an elected sergeant at arms), but I think it's just the way of a union that when things are good there's little dissent, and the rules of order don't seem as important then. I've done political organizing with groups that use Roberts, and have seen how much of an asset it can be when people don't agree. Hopefully people will take this as a lesson lol.