MindBenders - Parliamentary Procedure

This is where we will post questions and situations that will test your knowledge of parliamentary procedure. If you have a parliamentary Mind Bender or Brain Teaser that you would like to share, send it to mindbenders@parlipro.org and we will print the best ones here. Unless otherwise noted, the parliamentary authority is Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), 10th edition. The informal parliamentary opinions expressed here follow general principles of parliamentary law and Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), 10th edition, and are based solely on the brief summary of facts presented, without the benefit of having reviewed the bylaws and other governing documents. An association's own bylaws, covenants, Articles of Incorporation, Special Rules of Order, and local or state laws will supersede what RONR says. A significant difference in facts could result in different conclusions being reached. If there is much at stake, readers are encouraged to seek a formal written parliamentary opinion from a Professional Registered Parliamentarian, which includes a thorough review of the organization's bylaws and governing documents. Nothing here should be construed as an interpretation of statutory law.

Answer to Mind Bender for July 2005:

All references are to RONR 10th ed

Question: This was a vote to expel a member. There was a majority of the entire membership present, thus a quorum, and the item was scheduled on the agenda. The number attending was 21. The vote required two-thirds of those "present and voting", according to Robert's Rules. The president incorrectly interpreted the rule when he thought the vote need to expel the member was 14, two thirds of those attending. The vote was 6 against 12 for and 2 abstentions. Does the result that the president called stand or does the actual vote count approving the expulsion of the member?

Answer: According to RONR, expulsion requires a two-thirds vote unless your bylaws say otherwise. While it appears that an error was made in procedure, the result as announced by the presiding officer stands. A Point of Order with regard to the conduct of a vote must be timely, i.e. raised at the time of the vote, before the next item of business gets underway, else it is too late to object later, per RONR pp. 243-244. A Point of Order could have been made at the time, but it is too late now. Like a marriage ceremony, speak now or forever hold your peace.

Assume the vote was by ballot, since RONR p. 628 says, "A single member can require the vote on the imposition of a penalty to be taken by ballot."

While it is true that the tellers' report of a ballot vote should include the number of votes needed for adoption of the motion, RONR p. 404 says the following:
"The reporting teller NEVER declares the result of a ballot vote. The result is always declared by the chair, who also reads the tellers' report before he does so."

Thus, the announcement of the vote by the presiding officer is what is conclusive, not the tellers' report. The time for raising a Point of Order in regard to the conduct of a vote is right then and there, according to RONR pp. 243-244, as to whether the rule is correctly interpreted as
1. "a two-thirds vote of the members present and voting" (in which case abstentions have no effect and are not counted)
- OR -
2. "an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members present" (in which case abstentions have the same effect as "no" votes).

In this case, the number of votes cast is not in question at all, but the presiding officer interpreted the rule to be (2.) "a vote of two-thirds of the members present", which was not attained. A Point of Order could have been raised at the time that the correct interpretation of the rule is (1.), but RONR says on pp. 243-244 that such a Point of Order must be timely. It "may be raised immediately following the announcement of the voting result - up until another member has been recognized and has introduced another matter." After that, such a Point of Order is too late; the window of opportunity is lost.

Although this "timeliness" rule may seem odd or unfair to at first, if you understand the principle here, you will be well on your way to a greater understanding of parliamentary procedure. If you think about it, this is actually a very good rule. Otherwise, nothing would ever be finally decided in an assembly. Each faction in turn would spend an inordinate amount of time trying to find small technicalities in the rules in order to attempt to overturn previous decisions made by the assembly. A line in the sand is drawn. With few exceptions, a Point of Order MUST be timely. As they say, speak now or forever hold your peace. Would you really want it any other way?

Mind Benders and Brain Teasers: